I submitted a public announcement to the R.G. [Eugene Register Guard] that I would be speaking last Saturday, but they neglected to run the announcement in the paper so there was no public announcement at all.

It usually helps if you're sleeping with someone who works at the paper. Oh wait, never mind.

Why didn't any of your campaign's supporters show up?

I said please do your home work to one individual who suggested I was planted by one of the other candidates as a spoiler. I didn't realize an answer would show up so separate from the original source on a blog. I apologize to all who thought I was encouraging anyone other than one individual to do their homework. It seemed like an easy thing to check - but standing alone without the original reference it does look quite outrageous and like I'm scolding the world. I don't think I have the blogger scenario down. I'll just stick with my website and appearances. Thanks for the good questions earlier on, I'll answer them on candyneville.com in the near future.

Can someone please tell me why Neville is getting so much press? Did Pavel Goberman get this much notice when he announced for senate?

I'm not saying he should have, but is there much of a difference between the two?

Lastly, DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

Candy -

On behalf of the overwhelming majority of BlueOregon readers who are not Novick-bots, allow me to welcome you to the online conversation and to the race. You'll have to excuse lestatdelc, TorridJoe, and the other Novick supporters who feel threatened by your presence in the race. Don't let them bully you. The people who comment on these blogs are a tiny minority of the readers and they in no way represent the majority of folks who read your post.

While I have talked with thousands of people sick to death over Bush and the war, only three so far have signed up to take on Smith. You should be commended for having the strength of your convictions - not attacked. I can assure you that there are many Oregonians outside of the Portland area who will welcome another perspective, and more than a few of us are women.

Thank you for what you are doing.

Welcome, Candy. Best wishes in the campaign.

Posted by: Frank Carper | Nov 21, 2007 2:39:38 PM

It usually helps if you're sleeping with someone who works at the paper. Oh wait, never mind.

Wow Frank, could you possibly be any more sexist?

"May the best Democrat win."

Ditto to that. I'm interested in the ways the Democratic candidates differ from one another, because so far I have found it hard to perceive differences other than differences of style. I will go to Ms. Neville's website and spend some time there. Thanks Ms. Neville!

Kari Chisholm, Associated Press, the Oregonian and other media named me "not serious" candidate and do not talk about me. Well, the People in central Oregon without my knowledge made signs of my name and put on the roads. I named the media a cancer of our society. So many our soldiers died in Iraq because of the media. The media is selling our country and democracy. For the media a candidate is "serious" who paid it, but NOT me. The media afraid me because I against money in election - and the media would lose many millions dollars. It is serious.

Pavel Goberman - Candidate for US Senator www.getenergized.com/vote.html

Candy Neville answers Q's Posted by: lestatdelc | Nov 21, 2007 12:09:10 PM:

When you say out of Iraq, how and in what timeframe, all troops or residual force?

Now. all. residual support (ie generals and other tacticians) H.R. 508 Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007 (Introduced in House) is an all encompassing bill which deals with the many issues of the Iraq war, including the death and destruction suffered by the Iraqis. I would like to bring this bill into prominence. It appears to have been greatly ignored, which makes me believe the concept of withdrawal is being greatly ignored.

I would favor following the guidelines of that bill and would favor withdrawal in the following method. The method could be improved upon or replaced; it present this as one method for orderly withdrawal beginning immediately:

Take the utmost outskirts of our posts. Identify every position held by a U.S. soldier and add 1 to 5 Iraqi soldiers to that post. They would work together as a group for two weeks, being trained in the procedures. After two weeks the American soldiers would leave and the next perimeter would be trained similarly for two weeks and the American soldiers would leave. This would be done until all troops had departed, leaving only generals. Generals could remain or operate nearby in a preparatory and advisory capacity.

This would be presented as a great opportunity to the Iraqis to take up the very positions we now hold and be established at that juncture. It would put them in an advantage that they could expand and strengthen. I am convinced that there would ultimately be less blood shed with our presence gone. Just as our North and South (for purpose of example only) would never subjugate themselves to outside military dominance, neither will the Iraqi factions. Disagreements that are centuries old will not be fully understood by us nor resolved by us.

Further and of equal importance. Our homeland security is not as strong as it needs to be in this day and age. It is evidenced by the fact that we did not have enough manpower at our disposal to rescue grandmothers off of roofs after the Katrina hurricane disaster. We are not a land to be attacked for outside personal gain, but we have become a land to attack to humiliate or weaken. If such an attack were to occur, we who can’t rescue the grandmas on the roof, can not adequately protect ourselves in other locations. The length of time it would take to bring adequate military protection back, would be too long to minimize our damage.

I propose identifying the vulnerable locations in our individual states on our soil and using money to fortify and protect them. I propose bringing our troops home, keeping them trained and ready to fully and forcefully defend us here, if we were ever attacked by terrorists.

What is your position vis-é-vis Iran?
Patience, planning, diplomacy. Terrorist may want to engage in warfare, but most countries do not. Nor do they want to be dictated to by outside countries. I would keep a strong eye on Iran, continue to work with the United Nations. Meanwhile, I would be building up our military at home to make it adequately strong to meet future needs. I would avoid putting us into the position in Iran that we are in Iraq. Such a decision would further weaken us and cause us to lose even more face, respect and power on the global stage. America must stop being a group of posturers with bellicose words that put us in situations to our disadvantage.

Where do you stand on the Peru trade agreement? Where do you stand on trade in general?

What I mainly know about the Peru trade agreement is that it is substandard enough to have caused great concern. I liken asking me where I stand on trade in general - namely global trade - to be asked twenty years ago where I stand on cell phones and computers.

Global trade is a frontier. It is what we will make it. It can be used to subjugate the workforce and it’s standards or empower it. It has great potential for harm and benefit. Cell phones have opened up communication and convenience immensely. Computers have opened up more frontiers, ran more businesses, informed more people than I would have ever dreamed.

It can be the same with global trade - IF - we are diligent in identifying what needs, circumstances, standards and goals we have and we must insist on them in the global market. I would want to get direction, advice and experience from one of the largest, most established, multifaceted and powerful labor groups in the world, the AFL-CIO (they may endorse Merkley, but I endorse them). Issues would need to be studied, discussed, researched. Diligence and watchfulness could make the global market an avenue greatly directed and influenced by the United States, fortified via the input of groups of substance such as the AFL-CIO. With standards of product and work force and watchfulness against exploitation (including child labor, sweat shops) the global market can be profitable and expansive.

Where do you stand on abortion?

Am I pro-life? Am I pro-choice? Taking a stand is what both approaches already do and neither side is lacking in stand takers. Neither side will relent, neither side will go away, neither side will fall silent. For this reason neither side will achieve their ultimate goal.

I am pro-responsibility. I favor the two factions listening with an ear to understanding and satisfying the other sides concerns to the most possible level. Surgery of any sort has a built in danger and should be avoided whenever possible. All precautions should be taken to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies. Sex education should be thorough and comprehensive. Let’s get real here. Those who are genuinely against abortion should do all they can to be involved in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. Young women should be encouraged to be thoroughly in charge of their bodies. With the exception of rape and incest, women can become more powerful in making healthy decisions that prevent them facing this unwanted dilemma.

Where do you stand on the war on drugs?

What war on drugs? I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it. Though I favor diligence in preventing drugs from entering the country, a true war on drug would be ground level. A person may be foolish, immature, or even disobedient the first few times they try drugs. After that, with some drugs, they are simply addicted. At that point they are trapped and ill. A true war on drugs would spend its time and money on prevention and treatment. More diligence would be spent limiting and even eliminating sales to kids and others in parks and in school That is more key than chasing down a single plane of a drug dynasty that owns many. I am fully in favor of funding drug prevention, treatment and after care. I would want such assistance available to every and all addicts without legal consequence.

Where do you stand on illegal immigration reform?

It is long overdue, but not because it has caused such trouble or harm in our nation. The truth is, the multitude of illegal immigrants have provided tremendous support and service to several industries in our country. They have a deserved reputation as being hardworking and diligent.

But now we have grown in population as a nation and position of vulnerability. We are like the company that can no longer keep its books with a pencil and notepad and seal its deals with a handshake. We need to acknowledge three primary factors. 1. Meet needs of American business for foreign workers. 2. Deal with 13,000,000 undocumented workers who are already in this country. 3. Solutions must be comprehensive and enforceable.

To begin I would want the input and knowledge base of the business that employ and rely on them. I would want their needs to be met. I favor a plan that would allow those illegal, employed and productive immigrants to become legal foreign workers or citizens. If there is no incentive for them to come forward and be documented, the 13 million who are good at hiding will continue to hide. Rhetoric doesn’t change anything. Real change and accountability needs to deal in reality.

What qualifies you to be a U.S. Senator?

I am not “groomed” to be a U.S. Senator. I am equipped. My strongest attribute is courage to take on new endeavors with diligence, persistence and success. I am the one candidate that at this time stands completely alone, speaks completely of my mind. I set my agendas, write my own speeches answer my own questions. I am in no ones pocket. I have no connections - except that to the American people.

I graduated with a Sociology degree from the University of Iowa. I have worked as a legal secretary in law firms in Chicago, was a freelance writer for the Chicago Sun Times, taught GED at Lane Community College, was a recorded minister of the Northwest Yearly Meeting of Friends (Quaker). To my knowledge I was the first person to put in a ten-lot subdivision in the Southwest hills in Eugene after the recession with no investors, experience - but a willingness to learn, follow directions, cooperate, persist, pursue and complete a project. I proceeded to build to houses, again without investors - in record time with success and integrity intact. I then took on being an independent real estate broker for my own independent company, adding a vacation rental in Yachats.

Politically, I have volunteered for campaigns, written letters to the editors, protested in parades and on street corners. I have spoken up at public forums on behalf of various interests and concerns and have found myself quoted in the newspaper or on the news afterwards. Once I found myself on three t.v. stations speaking up in behalf of the needed ramp at the new Federal Courthouse in Eugene.

My biggest qualification is my heart for my country and the people who live in it. I have clocked too many hours to count and shed too many tears in agony over the loss of soldiers lives and limbs in Iraq. I have spoken up, voted, hoped to no avail. I came to the conclusion that the waiting for change was over for me. I needed to take what skills and abilities I have and do everything I can to stop the war in Iraq. I care deeply about the environment, health, education, labor, and more. But we are in a state of emergency with loss of lives and limbs, national respect, military strength, economical soundness. I offer my broken heart and my voice.

If elected, I will march into Washington and do my part with all the strength I can muster to channel my 1/100th percent of Senate power against a mighty ship that needs a new course. My disadvantage as a candidate - not being groomed - is my vast advantage as a senator. It gives me independence and strength, relying only on the people who elect me. I have already demonstrated one of my campaign promises - to stand up and speak clearly, a lone voice if need be.

And now I begin fund-raising and invite anyone willing to put their money where my mouth is: Candy Neville for U.S. Senate P. O. Box 11033 Eugene, Oregon 97410

Candy Neville answers Q's Posted by: lestatdelc | Nov 21, 2007 12:09:10 PM:

When you say out of Iraq, how and in what timeframe, all troops or residual force?

Now. all. residual support (ie generals and other tacticians) H.R. 508 Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007 (Introduced in House) is an all encompassing bill which deals with the many issues of the Iraq war, including the death and destruction suffered by the Iraqis. I would like to bring this bill into prominence. It appears to have been greatly ignored, which makes me believe the concept of withdrawal is being greatly ignored.

I would favor following the guidelines of that bill and would favor withdrawal in the following method. The method could be improved upon or replaced; it present this as one method for orderly withdrawal beginning immediately:

Take the utmost outskirts of our posts. Identify every position held by a U.S. soldier and add 1 to 5 Iraqi soldiers to that post. They would work together as a group for two weeks, being trained in the procedures. After two weeks the American soldiers would leave and the next perimeter would be trained similarly for two weeks and the American soldiers would leave. This would be done until all troops had departed, leaving only generals. Generals could remain or operate nearby in a preparatory and advisory capacity.

This would be presented as a great opportunity to the Iraqis to take up the very positions we now hold and be established at that juncture. It would put them in an advantage that they could expand and strengthen. I am convinced that there would ultimately be less blood shed with our presence gone. Just as our North and South (for purpose of example only) would never subjugate themselves to outside military dominance, neither will the Iraqi factions. Disagreements that are centuries old will not be fully understood by us nor resolved by us.

Further and of equal importance. Our homeland security is not as strong as it needs to be in this day and age. It is evidenced by the fact that we did not have enough manpower at our disposal to rescue grandmothers off of roofs after the Katrina hurricane disaster. We are not a land to be attacked for outside personal gain, but we have become a land to attack to humiliate or weaken. If such an attack were to occur, we who can’t rescue the grandmas on the roof, can not adequately protect ourselves in other locations. The length of time it would take to bring adequate military protection back, would be too long to minimize our damage.

I propose identifying the vulnerable locations in our individual states on our soil and using money to fortify and protect them. I propose bringing our troops home, keeping them trained and ready to fully and forcefully defend us here, if we were ever attacked by terrorists.

What is your position vis-é-vis Iran?
Patience, planning, diplomacy. Terrorist may want to engage in warfare, but most countries do not. Nor do they want to be dictated to by outside countries. I would keep a strong eye on Iran, continue to work with the United Nations. Meanwhile, I would be building up our military at home to make it adequately strong to meet future needs. I would avoid putting us into the position in Iran that we are in Iraq. Such a decision would further weaken us and cause us to lose even more face, respect and power on the global stage. America must stop being a group of posturers with bellicose words that put us in situations to our disadvantage.

Where do you stand on the Peru trade agreement? Where do you stand on trade in general?

What I mainly know about the Peru trade agreement is that it is substandard enough to have caused great concern. I liken asking me where I stand on trade in general - namely global trade - to be asked twenty years ago where I stand on cell phones and computers.

Global trade is a frontier. It is what we will make it. It can be used to subjugate the workforce and it’s standards or empower it. It has great potential for harm and benefit. Cell phones have opened up communication and convenience immensely. Computers have opened up more frontiers, ran more businesses, informed more people than I would have ever dreamed.

It can be the same with global trade - IF - we are diligent in identifying what needs, circumstances, standards and goals we have and we must insist on them in the global market. I would want to get direction, advice and experience from one of the largest, most established, multifaceted and powerful labor groups in the world, the AFL-CIO (they may endorse Merkley, but I endorse them). Issues would need to be studied, discussed, researched. Diligence and watchfulness could make the global market an avenue greatly directed and influenced by the United States, fortified via the input of groups of substance such as the AFL-CIO. With standards of product and work force and watchfulness against exploitation (including child labor, sweat shops) the global market can be profitable and expansive.

Where do you stand on abortion?

Am I pro-life? Am I pro-choice? Taking a stand is what both approaches already do and neither side is lacking in stand takers. Neither side will relent, neither side will go away, neither side will fall silent. For this reason neither side will achieve their ultimate goal.

I am pro-responsibility. I favor the two factions listening with an ear to understanding and satisfying the other sides concerns to the most possible level. Surgery of any sort has a built in danger and should be avoided whenever possible. All precautions should be taken to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies. Sex education should be thorough and comprehensive. Let’s get real here. Those who are genuinely against abortion should do all they can to be involved in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. Young women should be encouraged to be thoroughly in charge of their bodies. With the exception of rape and incest, women can become more powerful in making healthy decisions that prevent them facing this unwanted dilemma.

Where do you stand on the war on drugs?

What war on drugs? I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it. Though I favor diligence in preventing drugs from entering the country, a true war on drug would be ground level. A person may be foolish, immature, or even disobedient the first few times they try drugs. After that, with some drugs, they are simply addicted. At that point they are trapped and ill. A true war on drugs would spend its time and money on prevention and treatment. More diligence would be spent limiting and even eliminating sales to kids and others in parks and in school That is more key than chasing down a single plane of a drug dynasty that owns many. I am fully in favor of funding drug prevention, treatment and after care. I would want such assistance available to every and all addicts without legal consequence.

Where do you stand on illegal immigration reform?

It is long overdue, but not because it has caused such trouble or harm in our nation. The truth is, the multitude of illegal immigrants have provided tremendous support and service to several industries in our country. They have a deserved reputation as being hardworking and diligent.

But now we have grown in population as a nation and position of vulnerability. We are like the company that can no longer keep its books with a pencil and notepad and seal its deals with a handshake. We need to acknowledge three primary factors. 1. Meet needs of American business for foreign workers. 2. Deal with 13,000,000 undocumented workers who are already in this country. 3. Solutions must be comprehensive and enforceable.

To begin I would want the input and knowledge base of the business that employ and rely on them. I would want their needs to be met. I favor a plan that would allow those illegal, employed and productive immigrants to become legal foreign workers or citizens. If there is no incentive for them to come forward and be documented, the 13 million who are good at hiding will continue to hide. Rhetoric doesn’t change anything. Real change and accountability needs to deal in reality.

What qualifies you to be a U.S. Senator?

I am not “groomed” to be a U.S. Senator. I am equipped. My strongest attribute is courage to take on new endeavors with diligence, persistence and success. I am the one candidate that at this time stands completely alone, speaks completely of my mind. I set my agendas, write my own speeches answer my own questions. I am in no ones pocket. I have no connections - except that to the American people.

I graduated with a Sociology degree from the University of Iowa. I have worked as a legal secretary in law firms in Chicago, was a freelance writer for the Chicago Sun Times, taught GED at Lane Community College, was a recorded minister of the Northwest Yearly Meeting of Friends (Quaker). To my knowledge I was the first person to put in a ten-lot subdivision in the Southwest hills in Eugene after the recession with no investors, experience - but a willingness to learn, follow directions, cooperate, persist, pursue and complete a project. I proceeded to build to houses, again without investors - in record time with success and integrity intact. I then took on being an independent real estate broker for my own independent company, adding a vacation rental in Yachats.

Politically, I have volunteered for campaigns, written letters to the editors, protested in parades and on street corners. I have spoken up at public forums on behalf of various interests and concerns and have found myself quoted in the newspaper or on the news afterwards. Once I found myself on three t.v. stations speaking up in behalf of the needed ramp at the new Federal Courthouse in Eugene.

My biggest qualification is my heart for my country and the people who live in it. I have clocked too many hours to count and shed too many tears in agony over the loss of soldiers lives and limbs in Iraq. I have spoken up, voted, hoped to no avail. I came to the conclusion that the waiting for change was over for me. I needed to take what skills and abilities I have and do everything I can to stop the war in Iraq. I care deeply about the environment, health, education, labor, and more. But we are in a state of emergency with loss of lives and limbs, national respect, military strength, economical soundness. I offer my broken heart and my voice.

If elected, I will march into Washington and do my part with all the strength I can muster to channel my 1/100th percent of Senate power against a mighty ship that needs a new course. My disadvantage as a candidate - not being groomed - is my vast advantage as a senator. It gives me independence and strength, relying only on the people who elect me. I have already demonstrated one of my campaign promises - to stand up and speak clearly, a lone voice if need be.

And now I begin fund-raising and invite anyone willing to put their money where my mouth is: Candy Neville for U.S. Senate P. O. Box 11033 Eugene, Oregon 97410

CANDY NEVILLE ANSWERS FORMER Q'S:

When you say out of Iraq, how and in what timeframe, all troops or residual force?

Now. all. residual support (ie generals and other tacticians) H.R. 508 Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007 (Introduced in House) is an all encompassing bill which deals with the many issues of the Iraq war, including the death and destruction suffered by the Iraqis. I would like to bring this bill into prominence. It appears to have been greatly ignored, which makes me believe the concept of withdrawal is being greatly ignored.

I would favor following the guidelines of that bill and would favor withdrawal in the following method. The method could be improved upon or replaced; it present this as one method for orderly withdrawal beginning immediately:

Take the utmost outskirts of our posts. Identify every position held by a U.S. soldier and add 1 to 5 Iraqi soldiers to that post. They would work together as a group for two weeks, being trained in the procedures. After two weeks the American soldiers would leave and the next perimeter would be trained similarly for two weeks and the American soldiers would leave. This would be done until all troops had departed, leaving only generals. Generals could remain or operate nearby in a preparatory and advisory capacity.

This would be presented as a great opportunity to the Iraqis to take up the very positions we now hold and be established at that juncture. It would put them in an advantage that they could expand and strengthen. I am convinced that there would ultimately be less blood shed with our presence gone. Just as our North and South (for purpose of example only) would never subjugate themselves to outside military dominance, neither will the Iraqi factions. Disagreements that are centuries old will not be fully understood by us nor resolved by us.

Further and of equal importance. Our homeland security is not as strong as it needs to be in this day and age. It is evidenced by the fact that we did not have enough manpower at our disposal to rescue grandmothers off of roofs after the Katrina hurricane disaster. We are not a land to be attacked for outside personal gain, but we have become a land to attack to humiliate or weaken. If such an attack were to occur, we who can’t rescue the grandmas on the roof, can not adequately protect ourselves in other locations. The length of time it would take to bring adequate military protection back, would be too long to minimize our damage.

I propose identifying the vulnerable locations in our individual states on our soil and using money to fortify and protect them. I propose bringing our troops home, keeping them trained and ready to fully and forcefully defend us here, if we were ever attacked by terrorists.

What is your position vis-é-vis Iran?
Patience, planning, diplomacy. Terrorist may want to engage in warfare, but most countries do not. Nor do they want to be dictated to by outside countries. I would keep a strong eye on Iran, continue to work with the United Nations. Meanwhile, I would be building up our military at home to make it adequately strong to meet future needs. I would avoid putting us into the position in Iran that we are in Iraq. Such a decision would further weaken us and cause us to lose even more face, respect and power on the global stage. America must stop being a group of posturers with bellicose words that put us in situations to our disadvantage.

Where do you stand on the Peru trade agreement? Where do you stand on trade in general?

What I mainly know about the Peru trade agreement is that it is substandard enough to have caused great concern. I liken asking me where I stand on trade in general - namely global trade - to be asked twenty years ago where I stand on cell phones and computers.

Global trade is a frontier. It is what we will make it. It can be used to subjugate the workforce and it’s standards or empower it. It has great potential for harm and benefit. Cell phones have opened up communication and convenience immensely. Computers have opened up more frontiers, ran more businesses, informed more people than I would have ever dreamed.

It can be the same with global trade - IF - we are diligent in identifying what needs, circumstances, standards and goals we have and we must insist on them in the global market. I would want to get direction, advice and experience from one of the largest, most established, multifaceted and powerful labor groups in the world, the AFL-CIO (they may endorse Merkley, but I endorse them). Issues would need to be studied, discussed, researched. Diligence and watchfulness could make the global market an avenue greatly directed and influenced by the United States, fortified via the input of groups of substance such as the AFL-CIO. With standards of product and work force and watchfulness against exploitation (including child labor, sweat shops) the global market can be profitable and expansive.

Where do you stand on abortion?

Am I pro-life? Am I pro-choice? Taking a stand is what both approaches already do and neither side is lacking in stand takers. Neither side will relent, neither side will go away, neither side will fall silent. For this reason neither side will achieve their ultimate goal.

I am pro-responsibility. I favor the two factions listening with an ear to understanding and satisfying the other sides concerns to the most possible level. Surgery of any sort has a built in danger and should be avoided whenever possible. All precautions should be taken to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies. Sex education should be thorough and comprehensive. Let’s get real here. Those who are genuinely against abortion should do all they can to be involved in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. Young women should be encouraged to be thoroughly in charge of their bodies. With the exception of rape and incest, women can become more powerful in making healthy decisions that prevent them facing this unwanted dilemma.

Where do you stand on the war on drugs?

What war on drugs? I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it. Though I favor diligence in preventing drugs from entering the country, a true war on drug would be ground level. A person may be foolish, immature, or even disobedient the first few times they try drugs. After that, with some drugs, they are simply addicted. At that point they are trapped and ill. A true war on drugs would spend its time and money on prevention and treatment. More diligence would be spent limiting and even eliminating sales to kids and others in parks and in school That is more key than chasing down a single plane of a drug dynasty that owns many. I am fully in favor of funding drug prevention, treatment and after care. I would want such assistance available to every and all addicts without legal consequence.

Where do you stand on illegal immigration reform?

It is long overdue, but not because it has caused such trouble or harm in our nation. The truth is, the multitude of illegal immigrants have provided tremendous support and service to several industries in our country. They have a deserved reputation as being hardworking and diligent.

But now we have grown in population as a nation and position of vulnerability. We are like the company that can no longer keep its books with a pencil and notepad and seal its deals with a handshake. We need to acknowledge three primary factors. 1. Meet needs of American business for foreign workers. 2. Deal with 13,000,000 undocumented workers who are already in this country. 3. Solutions must be comprehensive and enforceable.

To begin I would want the input and knowledge base of the business that employ and rely on them. I would want their needs to be met. I favor a plan that would allow those illegal, employed and productive immigrants to become legal foreign workers or citizens. If there is no incentive for them to come forward and be documented, the 13 million who are good at hiding will continue to hide. Rhetoric doesn’t change anything. Real change and accountability needs to deal in reality.

What qualifies you to be a U.S. Senator?

I am not “groomed” to be a U.S. Senator. I am equipped. My strongest attribute is courage to take on new endeavors with diligence, persistence and success. I am the one candidate that at this time stands completely alone, speaks completely of my mind. I set my agendas, write my own speeches answer my own questions. I am in no ones pocket. I have no connections - except that to the American people.

I graduated with a Sociology degree from the University of Iowa. I have worked as a legal secretary in law firms in Chicago, was a freelance writer for the Chicago Sun Times, taught GED at Lane Community College, was a recorded minister of the Northwest Yearly Meeting of Friends (Quaker). To my knowledge I was the first person to put in a ten-lot subdivision in the Southwest hills in Eugene after the recession with no investors, experience - but a willingness to learn, follow directions, cooperate, persist, pursue and complete a project. I proceeded to build to houses, again without investors - in record time with success and integrity intact. I then took on being an independent real estate broker for my own independent company, adding a vacation rental in Yachats.

Politically, I have volunteered for campaigns, written letters to the editors, protested in parades and on street corners. I have spoken up at public forums on behalf of various interests and concerns and have found myself quoted in the newspaper or on the news afterwards. Once I found myself on three t.v. stations speaking up in behalf of the needed ramp at the new Federal Courthouse in Eugene.

My biggest qualification is my heart for my country and the people who live in it. I have clocked too many hours to count and shed too many tears in agony over the loss of soldiers lives and limbs in Iraq. I have spoken up, voted, hoped to no avail. I came to the conclusion that the waiting for change was over for me. I needed to take what skills and abilities I have and do everything I can to stop the war in Iraq. I care deeply about the environment, health, education, labor, and more. But we are in a state of emergency with loss of lives and limbs, national respect, military strength, economical soundness. I offer my broken heart and my voice.

If elected, I will march into Washington and do my part with all the strength I can muster to channel my 1/100th percent of Senate power against a mighty ship that needs a new course. My disadvantage as a candidate - not being groomed - is my vast advantage as a senator. It gives me independence and strength, relying only on the people who elect me. I have already demonstrated one of my campaign promises - to stand up and speak clearly, a lone voice if need be.

And now I begin fund-raising and invite anyone willing to put their money where my mouth is.

CANDY NEVILLE ANSWERS FORMER Q'S:

When you say out of Iraq, how and in what timeframe, all troops or residual force?

Now. all. residual support (ie generals and other tacticians) H.R. 508 Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007 (Introduced in House) is an all encompassing bill which deals with the many issues of the Iraq war, including the death and destruction suffered by the Iraqis. I would like to bring this bill into prominence. It appears to have been greatly ignored, which makes me believe the concept of withdrawal is being greatly ignored.

I would favor following the guidelines of that bill and would favor withdrawal in the following method. The method could be improved upon or replaced; I present this as one method for orderly withdrawal beginning immediately:

Take the utmost outskirts of our posts. Identify every position held by a U.S. soldier and add 1 to 5 Iraqi soldiers to that post. They would work together as a group for two weeks, being trained in the procedures. After two weeks the American soldiers would leave and the next perimeter would be trained similarly for two weeks and the American soldiers would leave. This would be done until all troops had departed, leaving only generals. Generals could remain or operate nearby in a preparatory and advisory capacity.

This would be presented as a great opportunity to the Iraqis to take up the very positions we now hold and be established at that juncture. It would put them in an advantage that they could expand and strengthen. I am convinced that there would ultimately be less blood shed with our presence gone. Just as our North and South (for purpose of example only) would never subjugate themselves to outside military dominance, neither will the Iraqi factions. Disagreements that are centuries old will not be fully understood by us nor resolved by us.

Further and of equal importance. Our homeland security is not as strong as it needs to be in this day and age. It is evidenced by the fact that we did not have enough manpower at our disposal to rescue grandmothers off of roofs after the Katrina hurricane disaster. We are not a land to be attacked for outside personal gain, but we have become a land to attack to humiliate or weaken. If such an attack were to occur, we who can’t rescue the grandmas on the roof, can not adequately protect ourselves in other locations. The length of time it would take to bring adequate military protection back, would be too long to minimize our damage.

I propose identifying the vulnerable locations in our individual states on our soil and using money to fortify and protect them. I propose bringing our troops home, keeping them trained and ready to fully and forcefully defend us here, if we were ever attacked by terrorists.

What is your position vis-é-vis Iran?
Patience, planning, diplomacy. Terrorist may want to engage in warfare, but most countries do not. Nor do they want to be dictated to by outside countries. I would keep a strong eye on Iran, continue to work with the United Nations. Meanwhile, I would be building up our military at home to make it adequately strong to meet future needs. I would avoid putting us into the position in Iran that we are in Iraq. Such a decision would further weaken us and cause us to lose even more face, respect and power on the global stage. America must stop being a group of posturers with bellicose words that put us in situations to our disadvantage.

Where do you stand on the Peru trade agreement? Where do you stand on trade in general?

What I mainly know about the Peru trade agreement is that it is substandard enough to have caused great concern. I liken asking me where I stand on trade in general - namely global trade - to be asked twenty years ago where I stand on cell phones and computers.

Global trade is a frontier. It is what we will make it. It can be used to subjugate the workforce and it’s standards or empower it. It has great potential for harm and benefit. Cell phones have opened up communication and convenience immensely. Computers have opened up more frontiers, ran more businesses, informed more people than I would have ever dreamed.

It can be the same with global trade - IF - we are diligent in identifying what needs, circumstances, standards and goals we have and we must insist on them in the global market. I would want to get direction, advice and experience from one of the largest, most established, multifaceted and powerful labor groups in the world, the AFL-CIO (they may endorse Merkley, but I endorse them). Issues would need to be studied, discussed, researched. Diligence and watchfulness could make the global market an avenue greatly directed and influenced by the United States, fortified via the input of groups of substance such as the AFL-CIO. With standards of product and work force and watchfulness against exploitation (including child labor, sweat shops) the global market can be profitable and expansive.

Where do you stand on abortion?

Am I pro-life? Am I pro-choice? Taking a stand is what both approaches already do and neither side is lacking in stand takers. Neither side will relent, neither side will go away, neither side will fall silent. For this reason neither side will achieve their ultimate goal.

I am pro-responsibility. I favor the two factions listening with an ear to understanding and satisfying the other sides concerns to the most possible level. Surgery of any sort has a built in danger and should be avoided whenever possible. All precautions should be taken to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies. Sex education should be thorough and comprehensive. Let’s get real here. Those who are genuinely against abortion should do all they can to be involved in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. Young women should be encouraged to be thoroughly in charge of their bodies. With the exception of rape and incest, women can become more powerful in making healthy decisions that prevent them facing this unwanted dilemma.

Where do you stand on the war on drugs?

What war on drugs? I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it. Though I favor diligence in preventing drugs from entering the country, a true war on drug would be ground level. A person may be foolish, immature, or even disobedient the first few times they try drugs. After that, with some drugs, they are simply addicted. At that point they are trapped and ill. A true war on drugs would spend its time and money on prevention and treatment. More diligence would be spent limiting and even eliminating sales to kids and others in parks and in school That is more key than chasing down a single plane of a drug dynasty that owns many. I am fully in favor of funding drug prevention, treatment and after care. I would want such assistance available to every and all addicts without legal consequence.

Where do you stand on illegal immigration reform?

It is long overdue, but not because it has caused such trouble or harm in our nation. The truth is, the multitude of illegal immigrants have provided tremendous support and service to several industries in our country. They have a deserved reputation as being hardworking and diligent.

But now we have grown in population as a nation and position of vulnerability. We are like the company that can no longer keep its books with a pencil and notepad and seal its deals with a handshake. We need to acknowledge three primary factors. 1. Meet needs of American business for foreign workers. 2. Deal with 13,000,000 undocumented workers who are already in this country. 3. Solutions must be comprehensive and enforceable.

To begin I would want the input and knowledge base of the business that employ and rely on them. I would want their needs to be met. I favor a plan that would allow those illegal, employed and productive immigrants to become legal foreign workers or citizens. If there is no incentive for them to come forward and be documented, the 13 million who are good at hiding will continue to hide. Rhetoric doesn’t change anything. Real change and accountability needs to deal in reality.

What qualifies you to be a U.S. Senator?

I am not “groomed” to be a U.S. Senator. I am equipped. My strongest attribute is courage to take on new endeavors with diligence, persistence and success. I am the one candidate that at this time stands completely alone, speaks completely of my mind. I set my agendas, write my own speeches answer my own questions. I am in no ones pocket. I have no connections - except that to the American people.

I graduated with a Sociology degree from the University of Iowa. I have worked as a legal secretary in law firms in Chicago, was a freelance writer for the Chicago Sun Times, taught GED at Lane Community College, was a recorded minister of the Northwest Yearly Meeting of Friends (Quaker). To my knowledge I was the first person to put in a ten-lot subdivision in the Southwest hills in Eugene after the recession with no investors, experience - but a willingness to learn, follow directions, cooperate, persist, pursue and complete a project. I proceeded to build to houses, again without investors - in record time with success and integrity intact. I then took on being an independent real estate broker for my own independent company, adding a vacation rental in Yachats.

Politically, I have volunteered for campaigns, written letters to the editors, protested in parades and on street corners. I have spoken up at public forums on behalf of various interests and concerns and have found myself quoted in the newspaper or on the news afterwards. Once I found myself on three t.v. stations speaking up in behalf of the needed ramp at the new Federal Courthouse in Eugene.

My biggest qualification is my heart for my country and the people who live in it. I have clocked too many hours to count and shed too many tears in agony over the loss of soldiers lives and limbs in Iraq. I have spoken up, voted, hoped to no avail. I came to the conclusion that the waiting for change was over for me. I needed to take what skills and abilities I have and do everything I can to stop the war in Iraq. I care deeply about the environment, health, education, labor, and more. But we are in a state of emergency with loss of lives and limbs, national respect, military strength, economical soundness. I offer my broken heart and my voice.

If elected, I will march into Washington and do my part with all the strength I can muster to channel my 1/100th percent of Senate power against a mighty ship that needs a new course. My disadvantage as a candidate - not being groomed - is my vast advantage as a senator. It gives me independence and strength, relying only on the people who elect me. I have already demonstrated one of my campaign promises - to stand up and speak clearly, a lone voice if need be.

And now I begin fund-raising and invite anyone willing to put their money where my mouth is.

CANDY NEVILLE ANSWERS FORMER Q'S:

Q. When you say out of Iraq, how and in what time frame, all troops or residual force?

A. Now. All. Residual support (ie generals and other tacticians) H.R. 508 Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007 (Introduced in House) is an all encompassing bill which deals with the many issues of the Iraq war, including the death and destruction suffered by the Iraqis. I would like to bring this bill into prominence. It appears to have been greatly ignored, which makes me believe the concept of withdrawal is being greatly ignored.

I would favor following the guidelines of that bill and would favor withdrawal in the following method. The method could be improved upon or replaced; I present this as one method for orderly withdrawal beginning immediately:

Take the utmost outskirts of our posts. Identify every position held by a U.S. soldier and add 1 to 5 Iraqi soldiers to that post. They would work together as a group for two weeks, being trained in the procedures. After two weeks the American soldiers would leave and the next perimeter would be trained similarly for two weeks and the American soldiers would leave. This would be done until all troops had departed, leaving only generals. Generals could remain or operate nearby in a preparatory and advisory capacity.

This would be presented as a great opportunity to the Iraqis to take up the very positions we now hold and be established at that juncture. It would put them in an advantage that they could expand and strengthen. I am convinced that there would ultimately be less blood shed with our presence gone. Just as our North and South (for purpose of example only) would never subjugate themselves to outside military dominance, neither will the Iraqi factions. Disagreements that are centuries old will not be fully understood by us nor resolved by us.

Further and of equal importance. Our homeland security is not as strong as it needs to be in this day and age. It is evidenced by the fact that we did not have enough manpower at our disposal to rescue grandmothers off of roofs after the Katrina hurricane disaster. We are not a land to be attacked for outside personal gain, but we have become a land to attack to humiliate or weaken. If such an attack were to occur, we who can’t rescue the grandmas on the roof, can not adequately protect ourselves in other locations. The length of time it would take to bring adequate military protection back, would be too long to minimize our damage.

I propose identifying the vulnerable locations in our individual states on our soil and using money to fortify and protect them. I propose bringing our troops home, keeping them trained and ready to fully and forcefully defend us here, if we were ever attacked by terrorists.

Q. What is your position vis-é-vis Iran?

A. Patience, planning, diplomacy. Terrorist may want to engage in warfare, but most countries do not. Nor do they want to be dictated to by outside countries. I would keep a strong eye on Iran, continue to work with the United Nations. Meanwhile, I would be building up our military at home to make it adequately strong to meet future needs. I would avoid putting us into the position in Iran that we are in Iraq. Such a decision would further weaken us and cause us to lose even more face, respect and power on the global stage. America must stop being a group of posturers with bellicose words that put us in situations to our disadvantage.

Q.Where do you stand on the Peru trade agreement? Where do you stand on trade in general?

A.What I mainly know about the Peru trade agreement is that it is substandard enough to have caused great concern. I liken asking me where I stand on trade in general - namely global trade - to be asked twenty years ago where I stand on cell phones and computers.

Global trade is a frontier. It is what we will make it. It can be used to subjugate the workforce and it’s standards or empower it. It has great potential for harm and benefit. Cell phones have opened up communication and convenience immensely. Computers have opened up more frontiers, ran more businesses, informed more people than I would have ever dreamed.

It can be the same with global trade - IF - we are diligent in identifying what needs, circumstances, standards and goals we have and we must insist on them in the global market. I would want to get direction, advice and experience from one of the largest, most established, multifaceted and powerful labor groups in the world, the AFL-CIO (they may endorse Merkley, but I endorse them). Issues would need to be studied, discussed, researched. Diligence and watchfulness could make the global market an avenue greatly directed and influenced by the United States, fortified via the input of groups of substance such as the AFL-CIO. With standards of product and work force and watchfulness against exploitation (including child labor, sweat shops) the global market can be profitable and expansive.

Q. Where do you stand on abortion?

A. Am I pro-life? Am I pro-choice? Taking a stand is what both approaches already do and neither side is lacking in stand-takers. Neither side will relent; neither side will go away; neither side will fall silent. For this reason neither side will achieve their ultimate goal.

A. I am pro-responsibility. I favor the two factions listening with an ear to understanding and satisfying the other sides concerns to the most possible level. Surgery of any sort has a built in danger and should be avoided whenever possible. When done, it should be done by licensed doctors in professional medical facilities. All precautions should be taken to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies. Sex education should be thorough and comprehensive. Those who are genuinely against abortion should do all they can to be involved in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. Young women should be encouraged to take full responsibility and be thoroughly in charge their bodies. With the exception of rape and incest, women can become more powerful in making healthy decisions that prevent them facing this unwanted dilemma.

Q. Where do you stand on the war on drugs?

A. What war on drugs? I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it. Though I favor diligence in preventing drugs from entering the country, a true war on drug would be ground level. A person may be foolish, immature, or even disobedient the first few times they try drugs. After that, with some drugs, they are simply addicted. At that point they are trapped and ill. A true war on drugs would spend its time and money on prevention and treatment. More diligence would be spent limiting and even eliminating sales to kids and others in parks and in school. That is more key than chasing down a single plane of a drug dynasty that owns many. I am fully in favor of funding drug prevention, treatment and after care. I would want such assistance available to every and all addicts requesting help without legal consequence.

Q. Where do you stand on illegal immigration reform?

A. It is long overdue, but not because it has caused such trouble or harm in our nation. The truth is, the multitude of illegal immigrants have provided tremendous support and service to several industries in our country. They have a deserved reputation as being hardworking and diligent.

But now we have grown in population as a nation and position of vulnerability. We are like the company that can no longer keep its books with a pencil and notepad and seal its deals with a handshake. We need to acknowledge three primary factors. 1. Meet needs of American business for foreign workers. 2. Deal with 13,000,000 undocumented workers who are already in this country. 3. Solutions must be comprehensive and enforceable.

To begin I would want the input and knowledge base of the business that employ and rely on them. I would want their needs to be met. I favor a plan that would allow those illegal, employed and productive immigrants to become legal foreign workers or citizens. If there is no incentive for them to come forward and be documented, the 13 million who are good at hiding will continue to hide. Rhetoric doesn’t change anything. Real change and accountability needs to deal in reality.

Q. What qualifies you to be a U.S. Senator?

A. I am not “groomed” to be a U.S. Senator. I am equipped. My strongest attribute is courage to take on new endeavors with diligence, persistence and success. I am the one candidate that at this time stands completely alone, speaks completely of my mind. I set my agendas, write my own speeches answer my own questions. I am in no ones pocket. I have no connections - except that to the American people.

I graduated with a Sociology degree from the University of Iowa. I have worked as a legal secretary in law firms in Chicago, was a freelance writer for the Chicago Sun Times, taught GED at Lane Community College, was a recorded minister of the Northwest Yearly Meeting of Friends (Quaker). To my knowledge I was the first person to put in a ten-lot subdivision in the Southwest hills in Eugene after the recession with no investors, experience - but a willingness to learn, follow directions, cooperate, persist, pursue and complete a project. I proceeded to build to houses, again without investors - in record time with success and integrity intact. I then took on being an independent real estate broker for my own independent company, adding a vacation rental in Yachats.

Politically, I have volunteered for campaigns, written letters to the editors, protested in parades and on street corners. I have spoken up at public forums on behalf of various interests and concerns and have found myself quoted in the newspaper or on the news afterwards. Once I found myself on three t.v. stations speaking up in behalf of the needed ramp at the new Federal Courthouse in Eugene.

My biggest qualification is my heart for my country and the people who live in it. I have clocked too many hours to count and shed too many tears in agony over the loss of soldiers lives and limbs in Iraq. I have spoken up, voted, hoped to no avail. I came to the conclusion that the waiting for change was over for me. I needed to take what skills and abilities I have and do everything I can to stop the war in Iraq. I care deeply about the environment, health, education, labor, and more. But we are in a state of emergency with loss of lives and limbs, national respect, military strength, economical soundness. I offer my broken heart and my voice.

If elected, I will march into Washington and do my part with all the strength I can muster to channel my 1/100th percent of Senate power against a mighty ship that needs a new course. My disadvantage as a candidate - not being groomed - is my vast advantage as a senator. It gives me independence and strength, relying only on the people who elect me. I have already demonstrated one of my campaign promises - to stand up and speak clearly, a lone voice if need be.

And now I begin fund-raising and invite anyone willing to put their money where my mouth is.

NEVILLE ANSWERS FORMER Q'S:

Q. When you say out of Iraq, how and in what time frame, all troops or residual force?

A. Now. All. Residual support (ie generals and other tacticians) H.R. 508 Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007 (Introduced in House) is an all encompassing bill which deals with the many issues of the Iraq war, including the death and destruction suffered by the Iraqis. I would like to bring this bill into prominence. It appears to have been greatly ignored, which makes me believe the concept of withdrawal is being greatly ignored.

I would favor following the guidelines of that bill and would favor withdrawal in the following method. The method could be improved upon or replaced; I present this as one method for orderly withdrawal beginning immediately:

Take the utmost outskirts of our posts. Identify every position held by a U.S. soldier and add 1 to 5 Iraqi soldiers to that post. They would work together as a group for two weeks, being trained in the procedures. After two weeks the American soldiers would leave and the next perimeter would be trained similarly for two weeks and the American soldiers would leave. This would be done until all troops had departed, leaving only generals. Generals could remain or operate nearby in a preparatory and advisory capacity.

This would be presented as a great opportunity to the Iraqis to take up the very positions we now hold and be established at that juncture. It would put them in an advantage that they could expand and strengthen. I am convinced that there would ultimately be less blood shed with our presence gone. Just as our North and South (for purpose of example only) would never subjugate themselves to outside military dominance, neither will the Iraqi factions. Disagreements that are centuries old will not be fully understood by us nor resolved by us.

Further and of equal importance. Our homeland security is not as strong as it needs to be in this day and age. It is evidenced by the fact that we did not have enough manpower at our disposal to rescue grandmothers off of roofs after the Katrina hurricane disaster. We are not a land to be attacked for outside personal gain, but we have become a land to attack to humiliate or weaken. If such an attack were to occur, we who can’t rescue the grandmas on the roof, can not adequately protect ourselves in other locations. The length of time it would take to bring adequate military protection back, would be too long to minimize our damage.

I propose identifying the vulnerable locations in our individual states on our soil and using money to fortify and protect them. I propose bringing our troops home, keeping them trained and ready to fully and forcefully defend us here, if we were ever attacked by terrorists.

Q. What is your position vis-é-vis Iran?

A. Patience, planning, diplomacy. Terrorist may want to engage in warfare, but most countries do not. Nor do they want to be dictated to by outside countries. I would keep a strong eye on Iran, continue to work with the United Nations. Meanwhile, I would be building up our military at home to make it adequately strong to meet future needs. I would avoid putting us into the position in Iran that we are in Iraq. Such a decision would further weaken us and cause us to lose even more face, respect and power on the global stage. America must stop being a group of posturers with bellicose words that put us in situations to our disadvantage.

Q.Where do you stand on the Peru trade agreement? Where do you stand on trade in general?

A.What I mainly know about the Peru trade agreement is that it is substandard enough to have caused great concern. I liken asking me where I stand on trade in general - namely global trade - to be asked twenty years ago where I stand on cell phones and computers.

Global trade is a frontier. It is what we will make it. It can be used to subjugate the workforce and it’s standards or empower it. It has great potential for harm and benefit. Cell phones have opened up communication and convenience immensely. Computers have opened up more frontiers, ran more businesses, informed more people than I would have ever dreamed.

It can be the same with global trade - IF - we are diligent in identifying what needs, circumstances, standards and goals we have and we must insist on them in the global market. I would want to get direction, advice and experience from one of the largest, most established, multifaceted and powerful labor groups in the world, the AFL-CIO (they may endorse Merkley, but I endorse them). Issues would need to be studied, discussed, researched. Diligence and watchfulness could make the global market an avenue greatly directed and influenced by the United States, fortified via the input of groups of substance such as the AFL-CIO. With standards of product and work force and watchfulness against exploitation (including child labor, sweat shops) the global market can be profitable and expansive.

Q. Where do you stand on abortion?

A. Am I pro-life? Am I pro-choice? Taking a stand is what both approaches already do and neither side is lacking in stand-takers. Neither side will relent; neither side will go away; neither side will fall silent. For this reason neither side will achieve their ultimate goal.

A. I am pro-responsibility. I favor the two factions listening with an ear to understanding and satisfying the other sides concerns to the most possible level. Surgery of any sort has a built in danger and should be avoided whenever possible. When done, it should be done by licensed doctors in professional medical facilities. All precautions should be taken to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies. Sex education should be thorough and comprehensive. Those who are genuinely against abortion should do all they can to be involved in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. Young women should be encouraged to take full responsibility and be thoroughly in charge their bodies. With the exception of rape and incest, women can become more powerful in making healthy decisions that prevent them facing this unwanted dilemma.

Q. Where do you stand on the war on drugs?

A. What war on drugs? I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it. Though I favor diligence in preventing drugs from entering the country, a true war on drug would be ground level. A person may be foolish, immature, or even disobedient the first few times they try drugs. After that, with some drugs, they are simply addicted. At that point they are trapped and ill. A true war on drugs would spend its time and money on prevention and treatment. More diligence would be spent limiting and even eliminating sales to kids and others in parks and in school. That is more key than chasing down a single plane of a drug dynasty that owns many. I am fully in favor of funding drug prevention, treatment and after care. I would want such assistance available to every and all addicts requesting help without legal consequence.

Q. Where do you stand on illegal immigration reform?

A. It is long overdue, but not because it has caused such trouble or harm in our nation. The truth is, the multitude of illegal immigrants have provided tremendous support and service to several industries in our country. They have a deserved reputation as being hardworking and diligent.

But now we have grown in population as a nation and position of vulnerability. We are like the company that can no longer keep its books with a pencil and notepad and seal its deals with a handshake. We need to acknowledge three primary factors. 1. Meet needs of American business for foreign workers. 2. Deal with 13,000,000 undocumented workers who are already in this country. 3. Solutions must be comprehensive and enforceable.

To begin I would want the input and knowledge base of the business that employ and rely on them. I would want their needs to be met. I favor a plan that would allow those illegal, employed and productive immigrants to become legal foreign workers or citizens. If there is no incentive for them to come forward and be documented, the 13 million who are good at hiding will continue to hide. Rhetoric doesn’t change anything. Real change and accountability needs to deal in reality.

Q. What qualifies you to be a U.S. Senator?

A. I am not “groomed” to be a U.S. Senator. I am equipped. My strongest attribute is courage to take on new endeavors with diligence, persistence and success. I am the one candidate that at this time stands completely alone, speaks completely of my mind. I set my agendas, write my own speeches answer my own questions. I am in no ones pocket. I have no connections - except that to the American people.

I graduated with a Sociology degree from the University of Iowa. I have worked as a legal secretary in law firms in Chicago, was a freelance writer for the Chicago Sun Times, taught GED at Lane Community College, was a recorded minister of the Northwest Yearly Meeting of Friends (Quaker). To my knowledge I was the first person to put in a ten-lot subdivision in the Southwest hills in Eugene after the recession with no investors, experience - but a willingness to learn, follow directions, cooperate, persist, pursue and complete a project. I proceeded to build to houses, again without investors - in record time with success and integrity intact. I then took on being an independent real estate broker for my own independent company, adding a vacation rental in Yachats.

Politically, I have volunteered for campaigns, written letters to the editors, protested in parades and on street corners. I have spoken up at public forums on behalf of various interests and concerns and have found myself quoted in the newspaper or on the news afterwards. Once I found myself on three t.v. stations speaking up in behalf of the needed ramp at the new Federal Courthouse in Eugene.

My biggest qualification is my heart for my country and the people who live in it. I have clocked too many hours to count and shed too many tears in agony over the loss of soldiers lives and limbs in Iraq. I have spoken up, voted, hoped to no avail. I came to the conclusion that the waiting for change was over for me. I needed to take what skills and abilities I have and do everything I can to stop the war in Iraq. I care deeply about the environment, health, education, labor, and more. But we are in a state of emergency with loss of lives and limbs, national respect, military strength, economical soundness. I offer my broken heart and my voice.

If elected, I will march into Washington and do my part with all the strength I can muster to channel my 1/100th percent of Senate power against a mighty ship that needs a new course. My disadvantage as a candidate - not being groomed - is my vast advantage as a senator. It gives me independence and strength, relying only on the people who elect me. I have already demonstrated one of my campaign promises - to stand up and speak clearly, a lone voice if need be.

And now I begin fund-raising and invite anyone willing to put their money where my mouth is.

NEVILLE ANSWERS FORMER Q'S:

Q. When you say out of Iraq, how and in what time frame, all troops or residual force?

A. Now. All. Residual support (ie generals and other tacticians) H.R. 508 Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007 (Introduced in House) is an all encompassing bill which deals with the many issues of the Iraq war, including the death and destruction suffered by the Iraqis. I would like to bring this bill into prominence. It appears to have been greatly ignored, which makes me believe the concept of withdrawal is being greatly ignored.

I would favor following the guidelines of that bill and would favor withdrawal in the following method. The method could be improved upon or replaced; I present this as one method for orderly withdrawal beginning immediately:

Take the utmost outskirts of our posts. Identify every position held by a U.S. soldier and add 1 to 5 Iraqi soldiers to that post. They would work together as a group for two weeks, being trained in the procedures. After two weeks the American soldiers would leave and the next perimeter would be trained similarly for two weeks and the American soldiers would leave. This would be done until all troops had departed, leaving only generals. Generals could remain or operate nearby in a preparatory and advisory capacity.

This would be presented as a great opportunity to the Iraqis to take up the very positions we now hold and be established at that juncture. It would put them in an advantage that they could expand and strengthen. I am convinced that there would ultimately be less blood shed with our presence gone. Just as our North and South (for purpose of example only) would never subjugate themselves to outside military dominance, neither will the Iraqi factions. Disagreements that are centuries old will not be fully understood by us nor resolved by us.

Further and of equal importance. Our homeland security is not as strong as it needs to be in this day and age. It is evidenced by the fact that we did not have enough manpower at our disposal to rescue grandmothers off of roofs after the Katrina hurricane disaster. We are not a land to be attacked for outside personal gain, but we have become a land to attack to humiliate or weaken. If such an attack were to occur, we who can’t rescue the grandmas on the roof, can not adequately protect ourselves in other locations. The length of time it would take to bring adequate military protection back, would be too long to minimize our damage.

I propose identifying the vulnerable locations in our individual states on our soil and using money to fortify and protect them. I propose bringing our troops home, keeping them trained and ready to fully and forcefully defend us here, if we were ever attacked by terrorists.

Q. What is your position vis-é-vis Iran?

A. Patience, planning, diplomacy. Terrorist may want to engage in warfare, but most countries do not. Nor do they want to be dictated to by outside countries. I would keep a strong eye on Iran, continue to work with the United Nations. Meanwhile, I would be building up our military at home to make it adequately strong to meet future needs. I would avoid putting us into the position in Iran that we are in Iraq. Such a decision would further weaken us and cause us to lose even more face, respect and power on the global stage. The administration must stop posturing with bellicose words that put us in situations to our disadvantage. As an immediate method to keep us out of Iran, I am a strong proponent of impeachment. Even if Bush/Cheney did not leave office, it is much harder to attack a country when you are under investigation.

And now I begin fund-raising and invite anyone willing to put their money where my mouth is.

NEVILLE ANSWERS REST OF FORMER Q'S: Q.Where do you stand on the Peru trade agreement? Where do you stand on trade in general?

A.What I mainly know about the Peru trade agreement is that it is substandard enough to have caused great concern. I liken asking me where I stand on trade in general - namely global trade - to be asked twenty years ago where I stand on cell phones and computers.

Global trade is a frontier. It is what we will make it. It can be used to subjugate the workforce and it’s standards or empower it. It has great potential for harm and benefit. Cell phones have opened up communication and convenience immensely. Computers have opened up more frontiers, ran more businesses, informed more people than I would have ever dreamed.

It can be the same with global trade - IF - we are diligent in identifying what needs, circumstances, standards and goals we have and we must insist on them in the global market. I would want to get direction, advice and experience from one of the largest, most established, multifaceted and powerful labor groups in the world, the AFL-CIO (they may endorse Merkley, but I endorse them). Issues would need to be studied, discussed, researched. Diligence and watchfulness could make the global market an avenue greatly directed and influenced by the United States, fortified via the input of groups of substance such as the AFL-CIO. With standards of product and work force and watchfulness against exploitation (including child labor, sweat shops) the global market can be profitable and expansive.

Q. Where do you stand on abortion?

A. Am I pro-life? Am I pro-choice? Taking a stand is what both approaches already do and neither side is lacking in stand-takers. Neither side will relent; neither side will go away; neither side will fall silent. For this reason neither side will achieve their ultimate goal.

A. I am pro-responsibility. I favor the two factions listening with an ear to understanding and satisfying the other sides concerns to the most possible level. Surgery of any sort has a built in danger and should be avoided whenever possible. When done, it should be done by licensed doctors in professional medical facilities. All precautions should be taken to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies. Sex education should be thorough and comprehensive. Those who are genuinely against abortion should do all they can to be involved in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. Young women should be encouraged to take full responsibility and be thoroughly in charge their bodies. With the exception of rape and incest, women can become more powerful in making healthy decisions that prevent them facing this unwanted dilemma.

Q. Where do you stand on the war on drugs?

A. What war on drugs? I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it. Though I favor diligence in preventing drugs from entering the country, a true war on drug would be ground level. A person may be foolish, immature, or even disobedient the first few times they try drugs. After that, with some drugs, they are simply addicted. At that point they are trapped and ill. A true war on drugs would spend its time and money on prevention and treatment. More diligence would be spent limiting and even eliminating sales to kids and others in parks and in school. That is more key than chasing down a single plane of a drug dynasty that owns many. I am fully in favor of funding drug prevention, treatment and after care. I would want such assistance available to every and all addicts requesting help without legal consequence.

Q. Where do you stand on illegal immigration reform?

A. It is long overdue, but not because it has caused such trouble or harm in our nation. The truth is, the multitude of illegal immigrants have provided tremendous support and service to several industries in our country. They have a deserved reputation as being hardworking and diligent.

But now we have grown in population as a nation and position of vulnerability. We are like the company that can no longer keep its books with a pencil and notepad and seal its deals with a handshake. We need to acknowledge three primary factors. 1. Meet needs of American business for foreign workers. 2. Deal with 13,000,000 undocumented workers who are already in this country. 3. Solutions must be comprehensive and enforceable.

To begin I would want the input and knowledge base of the business that employ and rely on them. I would want their needs to be met. I favor a plan that would allow those illegal, employed and productive immigrants to become legal foreign workers or citizens. If there is no incentive for them to come forward and be documented, the 13 million who are good at hiding will continue to hide. Rhetoric doesn’t change anything. Real change and accountability needs to deal in reality.

Q. What qualifies you to be a U.S. Senator?

A. I am not “groomed” to be a U.S. Senator. I am equipped. My strongest attribute is courage to take on new endeavors with diligence, persistence and success. I am the one candidate that at this time stands completely alone, speaks completely of my mind. I set my agendas, write my own speeches answer my own questions. I am in no ones pocket. I have no connections - except that to the American people.

I graduated with a Sociology degree from the University of Iowa. I have worked as a legal secretary in law firms in Chicago, was a freelance writer for the Chicago Sun Times, taught GED at Lane Community College, was a recorded minister of the Northwest Yearly Meeting of Friends (Quaker). To my knowledge I was the first person to put in a ten-lot subdivision in the Southwest hills in Eugene after the recession with no investors, experience - but a willingness to learn, follow directions, cooperate, persist, pursue and complete a project. I proceeded to build to houses, again without investors - in record time with success and integrity intact. I then took on being an independent real estate broker for my own independent company, adding a vacation rental in Yachats.

Politically, I have volunteered for campaigns, written letters to the editors, protested in parades and on street corners. I have spoken up at public forums on behalf of various interests and concerns and have found myself quoted in the newspaper or on the news afterwards. Once I found myself on three t.v. stations speaking up in behalf of the needed ramp at the new Federal Courthouse in Eugene.

My biggest qualification is my heart for my country and the people who live in it. I have clocked too many hours to count and shed too many tears in agony over the loss of soldiers lives and limbs in Iraq. I have spoken up, voted, hoped to no avail. I came to the conclusion that the waiting for change was over for me. I needed to take what skills and abilities I have and do everything I can to stop the war in Iraq. I care deeply about the environment, health, education, labor, and more. But we are in a state of emergency with loss of lives and limbs, national respect, military strength, economical soundness. I offer my broken heart and my voice.

If elected, I will march into Washington and do my part with all the strength I can muster to channel my 1/100th percent of Senate power against a mighty ship that needs a new course. My disadvantage as a candidate - not being groomed - is my vast advantage as a senator. It gives me independence and strength, relying only on the people who elect me. I have already demonstrated one of my campaign promises - to stand up and speak clearly, a lone voice if need be.

NEVILLE ANSWERS MORE OF FORMER Q'S: Q.Where do you stand on the Peru trade agreement? Where do you stand on trade in general?

A.What I mainly know about the Peru trade agreement is that it is substandard enough to have caused great concern. I liken asking me where I stand on trade in general - namely global trade - to be asked twenty years ago where I stand on cell phones and computers.

Global trade is a frontier. It is what we will make it. It can be used to subjugate the workforce and it’s standards or empower it. It has great potential for harm and benefit. Cell phones have opened up communication and convenience immensely. Computers have opened up more frontiers, ran more businesses, informed more people than I would have ever dreamed.

It can be the same with global trade - IF - we are diligent in identifying what needs, circumstances, standards and goals we have and we must insist on them in the global market. I would want to get direction, advice and experience from one of the largest, most established, multifaceted and powerful labor groups in the world, the AFL-CIO (they may endorse Merkley, but I endorse them). Issues would need to be studied, discussed, researched. Diligence and watchfulness could make the global market an avenue greatly directed and influenced by the United States, fortified via the input of groups of substance such as the AFL-CIO. With standards of product and work force and watchfulness against exploitation (including child labor, sweat shops) the global market can be profitable and expansive.

Q. Where do you stand on abortion?

A. Am I pro-life? Am I pro-choice? Taking a stand is what both approaches already do and neither side is lacking in stand-takers. Neither side will relent; neither side will go away; neither side will fall silent. For this reason neither side will achieve their ultimate goal.

A. I am pro-responsibility. I favor the two factions listening with an ear to understanding and satisfying the other sides concerns to the most possible level. Surgery of any sort has a built in danger and should be avoided whenever possible. When done, it should be done by licensed doctors in professional medical facilities. All precautions should be taken to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies. Sex education should be thorough and comprehensive. Those who are genuinely against abortion should do all they can to be involved in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. Young women should be encouraged to take full responsibility and be thoroughly in charge their bodies. With the exception of rape and incest, women can become more powerful in making healthy decisions that prevent them facing this unwanted dilemma.

Q. Where do you stand on the war on drugs?

A. What war on drugs? I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it. Though I favor diligence in preventing drugs from entering the country, a true war on drug would be ground level. A person may be foolish, immature, or even disobedient the first few times they try drugs. After that, with some drugs, they are simply addicted. At that point they are trapped and ill. A true war on drugs would spend its time and money on prevention and treatment. More diligence would be spent limiting and even eliminating sales to kids and others in parks and in school. That is more key than chasing down a single plane of a drug dynasty that owns many. I am fully in favor of funding drug prevention, treatment and after care. I would want such assistance available to every and all addicts requesting help without legal consequence.

Q. Where do you stand on illegal immigration reform?

A. It is long overdue, but not because it has caused such trouble or harm in our nation. The truth is, the multitude of illegal immigrants have provided tremendous support and service to several industries in our country. They have a deserved reputation as being hardworking and diligent.

But now we have grown in population as a nation and position of vulnerability. We are like the company that can no longer keep its books with a pencil and notepad and seal its deals with a handshake. We need to acknowledge three primary factors. 1. Meet needs of American business for foreign workers. 2. Deal with 13,000,000 undocumented workers who are already in this country. 3. Solutions must be comprehensive and enforceable.

To begin I would want the input and knowledge base of the business that employ and rely on them. I would want their needs to be met. I favor a plan that would allow those illegal, employed and productive immigrants to become legal foreign workers or citizens. If there is no incentive for them to come forward and be documented, the 13 million who are good at hiding will continue to hide. Rhetoric doesn’t change anything. Real change and accountability needs to deal in reality.

Q. What qualifies you to be a U.S. Senator?

A. I am not “groomed” to be a U.S. Senator. I am equipped. My strongest attribute is courage to take on new endeavors with diligence, persistence and success. I am the one candidate that at this time stands completely alone, speaks completely of my mind. I set my agendas, write my own speeches answer my own questions. I am in no ones pocket. I have no connections - except that to the American people.

I graduated with a Sociology degree from the University of Iowa. I have worked as a legal secretary in law firms in Chicago, was a freelance writer for the Chicago Sun Times, taught GED at Lane Community College, was a recorded minister of the Northwest Yearly Meeting of Friends (Quaker). To my knowledge I was the first person to put in a ten-lot subdivision in the Southwest hills in Eugene after the recession with no investors, experience - but a willingness to learn, follow directions, cooperate, persist, pursue and complete a project. I proceeded to build to houses, again without investors - in record time with success and integrity intact. I then took on being an independent real estate broker for my own independent company, adding a vacation rental in Yachats.

Politically, I have volunteered for campaigns, written letters to the editors, protested in parades and on street corners. I have spoken up at public forums on behalf of various interests and concerns and have found myself quoted in the newspaper or on the news afterwards. Once I found myself on three t.v. stations speaking up in behalf of the needed ramp at the new Federal Courthouse in Eugene.

My biggest qualification is my heart for my country and the people who live in it. I have clocked too many hours to count and shed too many tears in agony over the loss of soldiers lives and limbs in Iraq. I have spoken up, voted, hoped to no avail. I came to the conclusion that the waiting for change was over for me. I needed to take what skills and abilities I have and do everything I can to stop the war in Iraq. I care deeply about the environment, health, education, labor, and more. But we are in a state of emergency with loss of lives and limbs, national respect, military strength, economical soundness.

If elected, I will march into Washington and do my part with all the strength I can muster to channel my 1/100th percent of Senate power against an unweildy ship that needs a new course.

Several weeks ago I was asked the above questions. I had to break it into smaller comments because the system wouldn't allow it to be on one page.

<h2>Have you read Beyond Babylon: Europe's Rise and Fall? Do you consider the German-EU a threat to US? Will you aid and abet efforts to forge another Arab country (largely at American taxpayers' expense), rewarding terrorism? Have you heard of Herbert W. Armstrong who started out in Eugene, Oregon? Thank you.</h2>