Merkley is a labor pawn like Gordon Smith knows what it is like to live on a low income!

This stuff is nonsense--out of state lobbying groups don't do anyone any good. Even people who might argue the both sides of the card check idea know a pressure group when they see one.

Somehow I don't think they'll get very far going after people who work for a living. That's just so tediously Republican.

Here's the ad, for what it's worth. Kind of sleepy, really.

Sorry you chumps. The ad may be right-wing propaganda. But the cold hard fact is that Merkley is nothing but a water carrier for the corporate wing of the Party, which includes the SEIU. The progressive media is on to Stern and the SEIU, and you only look worse trying to deny it.

Merkley won because the SEIU endorsed him. So what I'm want to know without of any Merkley's typical venal weasling is whose side he is on: The national and Stern's or the UHW:

Andy Stern: Savior or Sellout? http://www.thenation.com/bletters/20070716/featherstone

Dissent in the Ranks SEIU Is the Nation’s Fastest Growing Union — But at What Cost? http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3604/dissent_in_the_ranks/

http://seiuvoice.org/article.php?list=type&type=3

This same group has run some TV ad's in the portland market as well. They compare union bosses to thugs and have actors dressed up as union workers talking about how abused they are by the unions. The ad's are decent in quality.

I find it interesting that we condemn other nations for the violation of Human Rights and base that condemnation on the principles adopted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet it is pick and chose here in the US.

Three examples.

Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

The Declaration is not a treaty and therefore not subject to Article 6 of the US Constitution, however, the United States was the principle author of the Declaration.

Just sayin'.

"#20 Teacher "Classroom Performance," Not Seniority, Determines Pay Raises; "Most Qualified" Teachers Retained, Regardless Of Seniority"

Isn't this a rerun?

If we had adequate school funding, there wouldn't have to be the layoffs implied in the ballot title.

Anyone who thinks teachers are not hard working needs to spend a day at a school. Esp. an elementary school. I don't think the Sizemore crowd would have the patience or stamina to last a whole day (speaking as a former substitute teacher who has also worked in a before/after school program).

Regardless of how union voters influenced this campaign, it turns out that we downstate voters really did matter in the US Senate primary after all (which was questioned here before the primary).

http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2008/05/rating_the_pollsters_in_oregon.html#more

The chart does not copy well, but it gives actual result and what the pollsters said. Here is the comment:

My comment: Everybody had problems with this one. The automated pollsters, conducting surveys in the last few days, were close on Novick but way under Merkley's final percentage. Did these kinds of surveys have trouble reaching women and voters outside the Portland metro area, two sources of Merkley strength?

All that needs to be said to deceitful little Merkley-supporting twerps like Kevin are to throw the cold hard facts in their face:

Merkley is running for the U.S. Senate where he would be shaping national policy. That includes deciding whether he will support the national SEIU and Stern, or locals, when the SEIU comes a calling with his orders on how he'll be casting his votes for the next six years. So the question is whether the local 503 supports UHW in their battle with the national, and therefore whether their support of Merkley is in support of the national or the UHW. Yea, Kevin, it comes full circle you dumb little Oregon twerp.

Princeton-grad Merkley is now wholly pwned by the DSCC/DLC corporate-friendly wing of the Party, who did what they do by getting big money poured into his campaign, mainly for empty, whining media spots. His cowardly, shriveled little nads are theirs. He'll be happy with that so long as he gets to call himself "Senator", since his entire political life has been devoted to building his own political career.

You don't like that fact Kevin, put this in your pipe and smoke it: You and Toady Merkley need the votes of Democrats like me to win. Some of us recognize Merkley for exactly what he is, and we don't need yet another weasly corporate sell out like Merkley. Bradbury himself pointed out on KPOJ there was something like a 20% undervote on the Senate race in the Oregon primary. So buy a clue, if you don't want us looking at other options to Gordon Smith.

I really look forward to the day when we do the whole unity thing, instead of insulting the supporters of the party's candidate.

Oh, and I don't understand why the anonymous blog coward refers to the guy attacking Smith as the chicken. There is, of course, a pattern of people who post the least productive comments choosing to do so anonymously. I personally think this blog would be better off without them.

James X, you're another typical ignorant whining Oregonian. So here are some facts in your face:

Whining like an elementary school kid about how you just want everybody to make nice when there are real issues at stake, and a serious question about the character integrity of a candidate based SOLELY on his record, is given the respect it deserves by adults: NONE.

As I recall from the past that someone else aptly noted on this very blog, and which I thought was well put so I'll repeat it: Our votes are anonymous and most people keep their reasons for how they vote anonymous. (Except racists in W.Va. and Kentucky I guess.) The whiner contingent of Merkley's supporters ought to be glad they are getting to hear the well-founded reasons all the Democrats I know, none of whom were particularly enthused Novick supporters, have such low regard for Merkley based on precisely what he points to most proudly in his own record. The undervote factor is evidence of this. So you only make yourself the butt of the discussion when you start on this tack.

And LT: Without absolute numbers and cross tabs on who was reached in polls versus who actually turned out, Mapes comment is gratuitous, yet typical of the low quality reporting one expects from the O. A real reporter in fact would have gotten those numbers instead of throwing out a hypothesis which has no grounding. Sorry if that makes your comment less than profound.

My first suspicion, and I call it precisely no more than that without the numbers, is that since the actual vote reflects how supposed late deciders broke, it shows how properly done negative media campaigning like Merkley's in the closing days, combined with GOTV efforts designed to keep those negative themes going, works quite well. I personally don't have a problem with negative campaigning since that is precisely why the drafters of the Constitution gave us the 1st Amendment. I strongly believe candidates who whine about it rather than come right back with properly done criticisms of their opponent deserve to lose. And Merkley and his corporate-America friendly DSCC/DLC bosses showed they agree.

Chump: What's at stake is Merkley vs. Smith. The man you choose to attack (or, in your parlance, the man you choose to whine about like a twerp with shriveled little nads) is Merkley. I'm focusing my aim on Smith.

Right on Chris!!!

It is my hope that (as has been done in some previous elections) eventually there will be a hard headed look at who won where and what might have changed that.

BUT, it should be after the November election. What was this all about if not about defeating Gordon Smith?

James X: What's at stake is not Merkley versus Smith, but Merkley vs Smith vs Frohnmayer (former Democrat who said he would caucus with Democrats on KPOJ) vs ???? in a state that still something like 30% NAVs.

Kevin: You're a fairly dense person, so I'll spell it out for you. The undervotes were people motivated enough to vote for the top of the ticket, and obviously unimpressed by their other choices on the Democratic ballot. That is just one source of rich territory for Frohnmayer or ????. The only Merkley can be assured of right now is 46% of the ~70% of the ~30% (which all told adds up to about 10% of registered voters). That's not even a respectable showing. So no Kevin, I'm not mad at anyone, I'm looking forward to a hard fought campaign where Merkley will get EXACTLY the criticism he deserves.

I have zero to do with the Frohnmayer campaign, but looking at his campaign website I found that Novick voters like me and the people I know are finding some interesting positions there. The really curious think to me is how his not so encouraging positions are fairly balanced against Merkley's not so encouraging positions.

By the way loser Kevin, I'm still waiting to here some one like you tell us whose side Merkley is speaking out on --- the national SEIU, or the WHU and therefore other locals. So speak up there, we can't hear you.

That's the reality for both of you and the rest of the Merkley droids --- deal with it.

BOHICA - perhaps people pick and choose articles within the UDofHR because the articles and sections conflict with each other. For example, Article 23 (1) says everyone has a right to work, to free choice of employment and (4) states Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. These two sections are mutually exclusive. The purpose of a trade union begins to be about improving working conditions and increasing wages. However, in order to try an increase wages the union begins to exclude workers to limit the supply of tradesman. This exclusion contradicts (1). A bunker mentatily is fostered and people have to be excluded from entering the industry except through the union who controls supply.

So, picking and chosing is required because, by definition one can't adhere to all the conflicting sections.

Also, the Human Rights record of the US is not nearly as good as it should be but it isn't nearly as bad as propogated by politcal activists. The US is the country of choice in terms of immigrants working conditions, wages and compassionate employees of our businesses across this land. In the 90's Holland was touted as progressive and in my journey over there to visit a friend I was sickened by the treatment of immigrants within the entire country. He could not get an office job until he perfected the dialect so he and the immigrants from Africa were relegated to the tulip farms. When he finally got an office job, I asked how the African immigrants were doing with the language. He relpied sadly that the dirty little Dutch secret was the African immigrants can perfect the dialect and were still shunned. The discrimination was limited to office workers, but with dating white women as well. The bigotry and discrimination was appalling and made me re-evaluate the "sins" of the US. This was in the 90's!

The US for all it's warts isn't nearly as bad as highly touted "progressive" nations.

Just saying.

Perhaps the undervotes were people who really cared about the presidential race but otherwise hadn't studied the other candidates because all they cared about was their choice of Obama or Clinton. Not everyone gets really excited about primaries.

Kevin: I don't really care what you claim is the positions of SEIU 503 (SEIU Local 49) and Merkley. All that matters is what positions Merkley (as well as the two locals) can personally commits to publicly, rather than his extensive public record of calculating public positions to best further his personal political career. That includes letting tools like you make claims about his positions that will never be found in his own public statements. He's got a grad degree from Princeton in public policy, he knows exactly what he's doing, and he has happily sold himself to the elitist, corporate wing of the Democratic Party.

LT: Your comments about the undervotes are simply a trivial rephrasing of what I said: Merkley and Novick didn't motivate people enough to care to vote in the Senate race which means they are in play for the fall for candidates other than Merkley.

When are we going to start attacking the attack dogs, and swift boating the swifties? It appears that these same people come up every election. Their credibility is extremely questionable. Why do we as liberals and progresives continue to let them go unchallenged. The Floyd Browns, Karl Roves and Roger Stones of the world and those of front groups like Union Facts and EFAC have skeletons, lets expose them for what they are and be done with them. Time to stop playing defense and whack back. If nothing else, make their lives and those they represent miserable. I know my goal has always been to make the opposition as uncomfortable in their own skin as possible.

"You're surely not denying that union support was the main table leg you relied upon for the better part of the campaign"

TJ, tables have more than one leg.

Here in the Marion / Polk area there were Novick supporters who remained friends with people who were Merkley supporters (something people reading BO might not imagine as possible) and often were involved with those folks in other political activities. There were people who have no connection to unions who voted based on "know both of them, and am more impressed by........".

There were people who admired Merkley's work in the legislature (here in Salem, we see it close up). There were people who said things like "Have known Steve a long time, but will not associate myself with some of his remarks" long before there was a TV ad quoting blog posts. These were not comments about blog posts, but about actual verbal remarks Steve had made sometimes years ago (often what some saw as off the cuff zingers or witty one-liners, but others found offensive--often stereotyping who groups of people).

In any election, someone wins, someone loses.

I do recognize his/her inimitable style from comments under other pseudonyms.

I believe the editors of this site can tell what other pseudonyms "what chumps" has posted under!!

Carla, just go to their website, they're going after Dems all over the nation.

torridjoe, the rest of these people are clearly of the la-la wing of the Democratic Party who believe they are the voice of the Party, but have no idea how they actually count for negative votes for quality, serious Democratic candidates on election day.

2008 is quite different though. Whereas in the past I have had to apologize for a lot of nutty Washington and Oregon Democrats to get my friends to hold their nose and keep voting for the lame "D" candidates these clowns keep pumping out rather than bolt the Party or just not vote at all, there will be at least one alternative in Frohnmayer. This year those in the goofball and elitist DSCC/DLC wings of the Democratic Party who try to spin us into believing that it this is just a Smith-Merkley contest will be seen outright as childish and deceitful. BTW, these are people who also support non-partisan primaries, which I oppose. In addition, Frohmayer is not running as a NAV independent, but in fact doing the honest work of organizing an Independent third party.

Now that the clown contingent drove me to actually read Frohnmayer's website a week after the election as I decided how I was going to break it to my friends I just couldn't twist their arms any more or the likes of a Merkley, I am persuaded that he could tap into the same voting block Obama is bringing out --- people who are in the sensible wing of the Democratic Party and NAVs. (I genuinely want to thanks all of you for your empty, sputtering comments and your clueless goofiness for motivating me to do that! You know who you are and I appreciate your efforts!)

Frohnmayer says he is an ex-Democrat who left the Party, seemingly because of how the wing that holds power talks big about how they represent average working people, but in fact haven't. He even supports single-payer health care and getting us out of Iraq immediately "We elected Democrats to get us out of the Iraq war," Frohnmayer said. "We're still in the Iraq war. They have proved to be totally wimpy." I think he is talking here precisely about the DSCC/DLC Democrats who hold Merkley's `nads in escrow now that they have bought him a nomination.

For more, google turned up this short recount of a forum at PSU in April (gotta love the google for providing more than just blogoviating about what candidate shills say about positions candidates don't actually state:)

Frohnmayer adds new dimension to U.S. Senate candidate forum http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/04/frohnmayer_adds_new_dimension.html

So I'm interested in what you have to say about Frohnmayer? Looking at Smith's approval rating, and the small size of Merkley's base (keep sputtering you Merkley tools), there is at least reason to believe he could poll a plurality. I don't necessarily agree with him, but I like reality, and that's reality. More reality is the question of whether Frohnmayer will espouse more genuine Democratic positions and values than then the goofy, lazy, self-serving Democrats we seem to nominate in Oregon.

And before you idiots jump to any conclusions, you would do well to not go beyond alleging that I'm just one voter looking for a reason to not be an undervoter this fall since I really can't support a typical, spineless Democrat like Merkley this time around.

PS. Pat Malach, I appreciate your delusions, and apparently those of the editors, but I can hardly take credit for all the informed critical comments in the past by people who don't choose to drink the kool-aid or engage in the back-slapping here. But I do wonder, from your almost godlike perspective, did this amalgamation of un-swayed commenters support Merkley or Novick in the Democratic Primary? That would appear some evidence of support for Frohnmayer. Thanks!

"Pat Malach, I appreciate your delusions, and apparently those of the editors, but I can hardly take credit for all the informed critical comments in the past by people who don't choose to drink the kool-aid or engage in the back-slapping here."

What the Hell is your problem, you loon?

All I did was say the editors could tell what, if any, other pseudonyms you've posted under, since at least two other commenters were making that allegation.

Here's a hint for you, "chump":

If your response to a one-sentence statement of objective technological fact is a 76-word rant that invokes God, Kool-Aid and third-party politics, you may have skipped off the rails.

P.S. I like Frohnmayer. Haven't Decided yet if I'll vote for him, but he's out front at the moment.

One last thing: Frohnmayer seems to the perfect answer to Merkley's deceitful negative campaigning against Novick asking how he was going to work with Democrats he criticized for being sell-out, corporate-owned Democrats.

Leaving aside what we don't know about Frohnmayer's positions right now (and there is a lot), if Frohnmayer won the question becomes how those kind of Democrats in a narrowly divided Senate (right now no one is contemplating Democrats will achieve anything close to a veto-proof majority) would work to get Frohnmayer's support.

I like that balance of power much better than what we get in Merkley. It appears to be working out reasonably well for Bernie Sanders and Vermont. Bernie seems to have no problem making very principled public positions. I never hear him offering carefully caged excuses for not taking such positions, including trying to game us with claims about "working behind the scenes". I think a lot of Democrats and the membership of groups like the SEIU membership may need to take responsibility to pay attention and become much better informed this time around about what the candidates actually stand for in this election. I know I will be.

Digging should be both fun and pretty easy. J. Justin Wilson is their Senior "Research" Analyst. His prior job? Same gig at the Center for Consumer Freedom- a front group for fast food companies (among others) where he fought against regulations aimed at helping people lose weight.

Can we quit rehashing the primary and start taking on Smith, McSame and orgs like this?

Pat Malach- Speaking in honesty here, I'll just note that you're original comment was at best ambiguous and can fairly be read as more than an innocent observation. The umbrage in your followup quote can also be taken as gentle humor or something more. It is all because your pointed original statement was offered unbidden --- after no other previous comments --- and, more importantly, you did not include you're parenthetical "if any" which can entirely change the meaning of your comment that you added here.

I do recognize his/her inimitable style from comments under other pseudonyms.

I believe the editors of this site can tell what other pseudonyms "what chumps" has posted under!!

It is the norm here and in our times to be make sufficiently ambiguous statements that one can weasel out of any statement (e.g. Merkley). Given that context, I still don't have any problem with my unambiguous comment, but I appreciatively take note of your addition of that critical "if any".

Beyond that, I think I have the right to point out that I had just one sentence in response to your two sentences. Everything before that first sentence of the P.S. was addressing the entire body of comments before that which focused on saying that this was a race between Smith and Merkley. Even the second sentence of that P.S. was in fact taking advantage of the specific situation you introduced to point out why Frohnmayer is an interesting 'X' factor in this race. I suspect the editors could also look at the body of pro-Novick statements and assess just how much of a challenge Frohnmayer is going to pose for Merkley. Without any real intent at being snarky (unlike a lot of BO commentators), pardon my attempt at being intellectually precise in a thread that in fact is trying to disparage any opposition to Merkley, including his relationship with certain segments of labor, as in fact coming from pro-Smith supporters.

"(Frohnmayer) was, however, appointed to a top-tier position in the first Bush Administration back when he was a very active Republican."

Think what you want about Frohnmayer and his candidacy, but he deserves better than to be dismissed with a misleading Bush taint.

Here's the real story from the Corvallis paper.

After the Vietnam War, he went to law school at the University of Oregon. He practiced as a trial lawyer in Eugene and Portland, and at the same time was named to the Oregon Arts Commission, where he held the role of chairman for four years. This experience whetted his appetite. "I thought ‘Gee, if there’s any job in the world I’d like to do, it’s chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts,’ and so I set out to get that job, and I did get it in 1989." Frohnmayer was appointed to the post by the first President Bush. While it was originally his dream job, his acceptance of the position couldn’t have been more poorly timed. "That was the most controversial time for the National Endowment, during the time of Mapplethorpe and Serrano," Frohnmayer said. "While those grants had been given before I got there, it was my job to deal with them." The two artists drew criticism for work considered pornographic and sacrilegious. Frohnmayer, who considers himself a long-time champion of the First Amendment, defended the endowment’s decision to grant money to the artists. "That job ended in me being fired by the president for essentially choosing the Constitution over political loyalty. There were lots of lessons I learned during that time, including your oath of office is to the Constitution, not to the president and not to the party.

Pat Malach:

Frohnmayer, who considers himself a long-time champion of the First Amendment, defended the endowment’s decision to grant money to the artists.

"That job ended in me being fired by the president for essentially choosing the Constitution over political loyalty. There were lots of lessons I learned during that time, including your oath of office is to the Constitution, not to the president and not to the party.

Bob T:

Yes, he fought the idea of picking and choosing based on the politics of his boss. Good so far. But since when is the First Amendment about granting taxpayer dollars to a select few among the population? The National Endowment for the Arts should have been eliminated long ago. It has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment in the first place, and what's missing here is acknowledgment that when the government is handing out the money, politics will indeed become part of the game. Simple solution: end the program.

Bob Tiernan

Pat Malach:

Bob, Those were not my words.

For the record: that was you quoting me quoting the Cowvallis Gazette-Times quoting John Frohnmayer.

Bob T.:

Oh! Thanks