Nice editorial, unexpected from Pendleton. The news this evening that the bipartisan charade is over. Dems are going it alone in the Senate as reported by CNN and NY Times.

Gee, who woulda thought! You mean those idiots were stringing us along and negotiating in bad faith! Well, I guess that's the pattern now. Obama asks for bipartisanship and gets a shit sandwich in return. He tried.

Time to let Wyden know that his only choice if he wants to be re-elected is to become a very active advocate for a robust public plan --- as in allowing anyone to buy into Medicare, as one example:

Labor Warns Dems: We'll Sit Out Election If You Oppose Public Plan

So is Blue Oregon and you Jeff all front and no back? Will Blue Oregon support Labor or Wyden?

What the hell is up with Wyden? I've always considered him a "friendly", but I want to know what he is thinking. Why is he not being forthright? How about a note from Josh? Currently, Wyden is being lumped in with B. Nelson, Landrieu, and others of that ilk as a non-supporter of the public option. I have to say, from available information, I can't rule that out.

In the news:

If you want to make this a "which side are you on" issue,

"So is Blue Oregon and you Jeff all front and no back? Will Blue Oregon support Labor or Wyden? "

I would remind you of a couple facts.

1) The record of "good Democrats support Labor and don't ask questions" when it comes to election results is decidedly mixed.

2) Have you noticed registration numbers lately? Which is the fastest growing: Democrats? Republicans? Independent Party? NAV?

The days of "if labor/unions can convince all Democrats to vote for us, we will win the election" are over. Elections have a tendency to be decided by the folks who are not strongly identified with a party.

What are you going to do---primary challenge? Support a Republican?

Look back in history at the 1986 Packwood endorsement by AFL-CIO. Do you really think any Republican running for US Senate is going to be a stronger union backer than Wyden?

LT, I'm under no illusions that I'm going to convince you of anything, but on a strictly intellectual level, I'd like to ask: what betrayal by Wyden would it take for you to say that progressives cannot support him?

I ask this because I have come to that point. He has taken vast amounts of money from the insurance industry. He has tried to float a scheme that would tax health care benefits for organized labor. He has proposed a plan that would wind up with the insurance industry still in charge, indeed with an increased stranglehold on health care, and with consumers at their nonexistent mercy. He was instrumental in making sure that we did not get a quick vote on this so that the health care industry could bring its vast amounts of money to bear on the debate. The transcript of his town hall meeting showed he was disingenuous at best in that he did not address any of these issues.

So my question to you is: in the specific case of Senator Wyden, what would he have to do in order for you to say, this is beyond the pale, and we need a new, more progressive voice in the U.S. Senate?

LT - This has to be the dumbest comment in the past week from any side:

Do you really think any Republican running for US Senate is going to be a stronger union backer than Wyden?

I'm not a labor spokeperson - I support labor interests over corporate interests. Ron Wyden to date has not supported a robust public option and Labor said that is going to be a defining issue for labor in the next election. Labor said they are going to judge politicians by their actions on this specific issue (because it really is a watershed issue of corporate power in America), not by their Party affiliations. Labor said they will sit this election out rather than support Democratic politicians who don't actually support them. I didn't make the statement in the Huffington Post, they defined their position on the health care issue, and because I agree with their position I making common cause with them.

I actually don't get the point of your totally incoherent ramblings. But I'll make a point crystal clear to you: Who the hell are you to say you know better than they who is in their best interest to support or not support as you seem to be implying?

Finally, did it ever occur to you that maybe Wyden has crossed such a line we could see a primary challenge? CT 2006 ring a bell in that pea rattling around between your ears. Health care reform and a robust public plan has become a line that divides labor and Wyden (remember the radio ads early this year, you fool?) unless Wyden changes his tune, and quick. I am putting the spotlight on Jeff and Blue Oregon to declare whose side they are on, and whether they are the kind of betrayers of Democratic values like the 20+% of CT Democrats that supported Lieberman regardless of his actual positions in the primary and later in the general.

Did that come through loud and clear?

"So my question to you is: in the specific case of Senator Wyden, what would he have to do in order for you to say, this is beyond the pale, and we need a new, more progressive voice in the U.S. Senate?"

Stop doing the town hall meetings every county every year, start being really rude to people who don't agree with him 100%. Turn into someone other than the Ron I have known all these years.

I don't believe we live in a bipolar world (labor vs. corporate), perhaps because I was involved in Democratic Party politics in the 1980s when there were union types (incl. those who stood with their union when it endorsed Packwood or Hatfield) who would tell those of us who were not union members that all REAL Democrats were union supporters.

There were active union members who didn't agree with that idea of telling Democrats devoting large chunks of their spare time to Democratic causes that they weren't REAL Democrats if they thought for themselves. It was an issue fought out at meetings and elsewhere during the 1980s.

Also, Ron Wyden has been a friend for a quarter of a century. Even when I got fed up with the Democratic Party (once too often was told that REAL Democrats take orders and don't think for themselves) and registered NAV, Ron was still friendly.

Don't think "you're not supposed to be friends with that person we disagree with" will change my mind--hasn't in the past.

And I'm curious what " new, more progressive voice in the U.S. Senate" you have in mind. I worked on that Jan. 1996 campaign which got Ron elected to the US Senate in the first place.

I am wondering how you intend to persuade those who have turned out for all those town hall meetings all these years that "Ron isn't strong enough on the public option--he's gotta go". I have been involved in US Senate primaries, and they are not as easy as they may appear.

LT, I appreciate your thoughtful answer, and I believe I understand it. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you feel like you have a personal bond with Senator Wyden that comes from his personal treatment of you over the years and also the way that he has treated his constituents in town meetings and gatherings. He has not been rude to people who did not agree with him. And also, you do not see a likely winner on the horizon since Wyden has built up so much personal good will.

This answer reminds me of an experience I had when I was growing up. My father was a businessman, a vice president in a company that did a lot of business with the government. As it happens, St. Patrick's Day was always a huge party at my house (actually about a three day party) and my father would invite home some government people for the party. One year (1973) he came home with Attorney General Richard Kleindeinst and several other people who I would later learn would be involved in the September 19 overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile. These people were the nicest people you could imagine. They asked about me, remembered my name, wanted to discuss my studies, were respectful to my girlfriend, wrote a nice note afterward to invite me to visit Washington. (I had already been to jail several times in D.C. and they knew this, so this was a nice gesture.)

My point is this. Without in any way comparing Senator Wyden to these criminals - that is not my intention, and that would certainly be unfair - what I learned from that experience is that personality and personal warmth are not connected with political policy. So again, without any expectation of asking you to change your own orientation on these matters, I want to explain that, in my view, the personal is NOT political, and that progressives should (in the words of John Kenneth Galbraith) support the leftmost credible candidate.

It seems to me for all the reasons that I have given above that Senator Wyden has disqualified himself from being a progressive on the most important issue of the Obama presidency. Indeed, he has been actively part of the problem. We in Oregon have a right to expect better, I think. Simply being an exemplary human being with respect to temperament and mannerism is not going to cut it, in my view. Give me a William O. Douglass, by all accounts a not very nice person (to put it mildly), but a giant on the Supreme Court.

OK, this has gotten really ridiculous but I have to admire how Joe Hill tries to roll with it.

At the same time, sometimes you just have to make it something clear in plain talk to people like LT.

LT- you're a NAV, or so you say above. So what gives you the slightest belief you have a right to be so outright rude as to take your arrogant, self-centered tone and argue with registered Democrats who we should choose as the candidate that we feel best represents our values? I don't tell Republicans who they should nominate. And I don't tell clueless NAVs what third-party or independent candidate-of-the-month they should line up behind.

You took a hike from the Democratic Party, so butt out. In this debate about Party values about health care, you're sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

You like Ron so much, the civil and principled thing to do is tell him you'll work for him if he runs as a third party candidate. (And those of us who remain Democrats will do what we can to make sure we don't see CT 2006 with Lieberman here in Oregon.)

OK, this has gotten really ridiculous but I have to admire how Joe Hill tries to roll with it.

At the same time, sometimes you just have to make it something clear in plain talk to people like LT.

LT- you're a NAV, or so you say above. So what gives you the slightest belief you have a right to be so outright rude as to take your arrogant, self-centered tone and argue with registered Democrats who we should choose as the candidate that we feel best represents our values? I don't tell Republicans who they should nominate. And I don't tell clueless NAVs what third-party or independent candidate-of-the-month they should line up behind.

You took a hike from the Democratic Party, so butt out. In this debate about Party values about health care, you're sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

You like Ron so much, the civil and principled thing to do is tell him you'll work for him if he runs as a third party candidate. (And those of us who remain Democrats will do what we can to make sure we don't see CT 2006 with Lieberman here in Oregon.)

I'm in favor of healthcare reform. I am in no way wed to a government run option. It is not a litmus test for me or for many who I know. That is why I prefer Senator Wyden's carefully crafted approach. If state unions want to try and flex their muscle they can, but they may well find themselves on the outside looking in.

Big Labor did not endorse Reagan, but the rank and file voted for him. Big labor did not endorse Bush the first or second, yet rank and file ignored the bosses and voted for them anyway.

Wyden is a thoughtful and considerate senator our state shouldbe proud of. He is one of the few who has tried to build a consensus bill that would approach all considerations without the mandate of a government run option. I see no problem with that.

In the News - way to remain anonymous; and Joe Hill are examples of the strident left that will hold their collective breath in the corner until they get their way, or faiing that pass out. LT is NAV (I am also) like it or not Progressives, you don't elect the folks. We, the non-affiliated and undecided 10%-15% elect our representatives.

Learn from the republican meltdown or be doomed to repeat it.

Here are the charges against Ron Wyden:

Charge 1 - he has betrayed Obama and labor by having his own proposal that would leave insurance companies in charge Charge 2 - he has taken money from insurance companies Charge 3 - he hasn't come out for a full and robust public option.

Charge 1 - When are people going to wake up here and across the nation - the people above Wyden's paygrade have ALREADY decided that the private insurance companies are going to remain and dominate the market. This has nothing to do with Wyden's proposal. The House bill and the Dodd bill will both leave the insurance companies fully in charge. Only a tiny number of Americans will be allowed to purchase the public option under their bills, bills which will not be strengthened on the House or Senate floors, especially with Obama repeatedly signaling that dumping the public option will not draw a presidential veto.

Wyden proposed his plan several years ago and I remember extensive discussions on BlueOregon and other progressive outlets where most people were pretty complimentary and single payer supporters told him to get on the single payer bus. Many of us were pretty impressed and it looked, if anything, too ambitious. The President of SEIU was obviously impressed because he was standing beside Wyden at the press conference for his bill. You may not agree with his bill, but it certainly wasn't proposed just recently to interfere with single payer or a true, universal public option.

Charge 2 - On this charge, we would have to primary every single Democrat in Congress. Just about every Democrat running the show on health reform has taken more money from the health and health insurance companies than Wyden. Obama himself took a bucketful of their campaign money in the presidential (I don't remember the figure, but it dwarfs Wyden's contributions), and I don't personally believe the President's actions are affected at all by their contributions, but we can't judge one politician on this basis if we are not willing to apply that standard to every single Democrat.

Charge 3 - It is true that he hasn't come put for a full and robust public option, but since no one in power from the President to Pelosi is currently pushing for a public option that I can purchase - or most of the people on BlueOregon can purchase - Wyden is hardly alone. At least he isn't trying to claim he is a supporter of public option while supporting a bill with a very weak public option that only a small fraction of America will be allowed to purchase.

And to follow on to LT's comments, who are you people going to convince to run against Wyden? There is no one stronger with Democrats in the state than Wyden. No one is even close, and the reason is that, unlike DINOs, he works harder than any other elected official in Oregon to get other Democrats elected, and he votes like a liberal the overwhelming majority of the time. At a time when the best new faces we can come up with for Governor are Brian Clem and Desari Strader (nice, talented people, but Governors?), beating the most popular politician in our state with the DSCC, White House, and tens of million of dollars behind him might be just a bit of a stretch.

People who think Ron Wyden can be defeated next year, by a Democrat or Republican, are dead wrong, in my opinion.

And LT, I don't think anyone originally said Wyden has to support labor to be a good Democrat in those words before you made the accusation that they did, they said that if he doesn't, labor might not support him, and that could endanger him. It wouldn't; he's strong enough to weather it, I think, but it would be fair for labor groups to abandon him. On health care and a number of other issues he has either been unreliable or reliably against their agendas.

And Kurt, most union members did not vote for Bush. That statistic is easy to find on the internet. CNN and other organizations' exit polls make that very clear. Certain groups of unionized workers, like corrections officers, may be more likely to vote Republican, but largely union members vote for Democrats, and the majority of them certainly did during the last decade. And I think the majority will vote for Ron Wyden next year regardless of all this.

partial disclosure- I delivered thousands of notes from AFSCME members to Ron Wyden's DC office in the recent campaign to move him on health care reform, I'm currently an intern with AFSCME's political staff in DC, and I've done a little work towards convincing Democrats to support health care reform in that position, while on break from UO.

Thanks, Joe, for the serious answer.

There is an old saying, "can't beat somebody with nobody".

Assume for a moment that there is a large group of Oregonians who want to replace Wyden in the primary. Will they join a campaign to do so, contribute time and money?

2 cautionary tales: 1) People in the old 2nd Dist. in 1980 felt that way in 1980 about Al Ullman (hope we can all agree Ron is better than Al in any number of ways). A well known retired Salem activist got 45% of the primary vote. Republicans then opened the floodgates of money and Denny Smith won in a very close election which incl. a 3rd party candidate. Took us 10 years to get rid of Denny.

2) No, I am not NAV, but I was for 6 years from the day after the 1996 primary until March 2002. Prior to that, I had worked very hard as a volunteer on the Lonsdale 1992 primary---incl. being one of the recount observers. It was at least as divisive a primary as Bush v. McCain 2000.

The old saying is true--you can't beat somebody with nobody. Who would the candidate be? Someone who already has name recognition? A state legislator? The Novick campaign should be a cautionary tale of how hard it is for someone who never held public office to win statewide.

Lonsdale was the nominee once over token opposition in the primary and lost to Hatfield partly because of DEMOCRATS FOR HATFIELD. Trust me, the names on that 1990 mailer (who's who of Oregon politics) were a contentious issue in 1992---in 1990 Lonsdale got the same percentage against Hatfield that Wayne Morse had gotten against Hatfield. "It is AuCoin's turn now" did not generate much support in 1992 or he wouldn't have needed a recount to win the primary.

But if you feel that strongly, go ahead. Drop your blogging (unless you want to start a Defeat Wyden blog), ignore the Gov. election and all other 2010 elections, and start organizing now.

Joe, and In the News, you will need to start organizing this month. Claiming Wyden is Lieberman may not get you the votes you need. And even if you think I am a terrible person, are you saying you also don't need the votes of Kurt and Bradley?

There are people who believe blogging is politics. No, blogging is blogging, and will not necessarily get the desired result. The reason I have a Merkley sticker on my car to this day is that I love to tell this story:

there were BO types who called me all kinds of names because I wasn't an early Novick supporter. I didn't like something he said in one of his speeches--was that a crime? Because I did not declare my loyalty to one candidate early, I was insulted by Novickians who said things like "we knew you were a Merkleyite before you realized it yourself". Then there was a "last straw" comment which caused me to say "Fine, thanks for making my decision for me. If this is the attitude of Novick supporters, I have decided to support Merkley". Shortly afterwards, I put a Merkley sticker on my car.

No, I am not NAV now, but I did vote for M. 65 and would gladly reregister NAV after the next primary. That was because for all my thousands of hours of Democratic volunteering (party and candidates--I was once on St. Central Comm.) I was told repeatedly that Democrats were supposed to allow other people to think for them. Not in the Democratic Party I had known.

Anyone who tries to organize a campaign will find that Oregonians are individuals. Name calling is usually not an effective strategy.

But I value hard work and wonder if Joe and In the News really have the gumption to carry through on their threat.

Perhaps Paul Craig Roberts has it right when he says, "Americans: Serfs Ruled by Oligarchs"

As for Wyden, Democrats will vote for him no matter what. If he works for the insurance (and other) corporations funding his re-election campaigns (opensecrets dot org) to the disadvantage of the people, Democrats will still vote for him. He supported the criminal Israeli occupation and massacres in Gaza, denounced by all major human rights groups, but that won't make any difference to the "progressives" in the Democratic Party, including those at Blue Oregon.

After Kennedy won in 1960 with the presumed assistance of the Daley Machine and the Mafia, someone asked a Chicagoan how the people of Chicago could vote for a crook. The answer was, "Because he is our crook." As Chicago went, so still goes the nation on both sides of the political sewer.

I see nothing wrong with Democratic voters who actually elected Wyden, voicing their preference as to which of the competing proposals they wish him to support. If he is unsure or wavering, I think some political pressure from the people who voted for him as opposed to continually trying to placate they people who voted against him, just might be the thing to clear up his thinking on this issue.

This idea that he seems to have; that the Republicans can and will negotiate in good faith with Democrats on President Obama's healthcare reform legislation is laughable on it's face. Yet, he continues to pursue it.

It's time for Democrats to write the bill the country wants and needs and pass it without even one republican vote if necessary.

Senator Wyden. Whose side are you on?

The idea that it's labor or Wyden is laughable.

Jeff's right. And that's true of a lot of the people who aren't committed to a public option or nothing.

You folks might be interested in this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/health/policy/19repubs.html?_r=1&ref=politics

And no, I don't think Wyden is guilty of heresy because he had his own plan (which he discussed in town hall meetings) prior to the House or Senate committees passing bills.

"Agree with the leadership publicly" should be a GOP tactic. Democrats I have known over the years are not the "yes, I will repeat the talking points and never deviate from them" type. More like "I have a question about the wording of this, I want more discussion of that".

Wyden is being responsible by trying to come up with some sort of oppositional support.

If health care "reform" is passed via conciliation, it will one day be undone in the same fashion.

<h2>Wyden has been in the minority before and it shows through his lack of hubris about being in the current majority.</h2>