don't tease me like this. got link? If true, the news is fabulous.

Frohnmayer drops out of Ore. Senate race 10 June 2008 13:53 (c) 2008. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

SALEM, Ore. (AP) - John Frohnmayer says he is dropping his bid for the U.S. Senate.

Frohnmayer had planned to run as the Independent Party's candidate in a three-way race against Republican Senator Gordon Smith and Democrat Jeff Merkley.

But Frohnmayer said Tuesday he has had a tough time rounding up campaign money and grass-roots support.

Frohnmayer was chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts during the first Bush administration. He is the brother of University of Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer.

I never did decide whether he was going to help Merkley by peeling moderate Republican votes away from Smith, or hurt him by splitting the anti-incumbent vote.

Guess it's all moot now.

GO MERKLEY!!

heres the link to the AP story

I am glad about this. His ideas would have gotten too many Dems away from Merkley. I think a lot of the Novick people would have a tough time going all in for Merkley, when Frohnmeyer was closer to Novick.

yes, this is good news indeed. i've always felt he would hurt merkley more than smith.

Hallelujah! I am convinced he would have hurt Merkley more than Smith. He would not have been a good candidate -- he wasn't one -- but he would have provided a protest vote placeholder for disgruntled Dems. Now we have to work on getting them to vote for Merkley instead of avoiding the downballot.

Greg Walden could use a good challenge.

Frohnmayer would have pulled those the last trickle of those who consider themselves moderate Republicans. I hope he endorses Merkley.

This is good for Merkley. Merkley is going to win! And it's refreshing to put an end to the ever zealous we're backing a guy that can never win but we're more pure than you crowd - usually with chief cheerleader in charge Sal Peralta. I guess it's back to peddling real estate. Or maybe Kitzhaber will now feign yet an attention seeking threat to run as an independent.

Onward!

I think it's too bad that even when John Frohnmayer does the right thing and gets out for the progressive cause, there's still bile being slung at him and his supporters.

In a republic, it's the right of every citizen to find a candidate who appeals to them. Frohnmayer's decision should be met with praise (he's been a brave and virtuous public servant, after all), not derision.

Let's keep our eyes on the prize: sending Sen. Smith back to Pendleton.

When has Kithaber ever feigned a run as an independent? In two cycles now ('02 and '08) he turned down the Democratic Party's call for running. I do not think anybody doubts that Kitzhaber would be the nominee if he had run this time (and he would probably have been the front runner in the general too).

Will Merkley poke his head out of the sand now, or will we have to wait another 6 weeks for another peep from him?

"Will Merkley poke his head out of the sand now, or will we have to wait another 6 weeks for another peep from him?"

Thats up to his handlers, I would assume. He won't peep until his strategists tell him to. I guess they are waiting for "the right moment".

He wasn't going to siphon much votes from anyone. He had no money to begin with, so I don't understand why he is dropping out now. There must be something else going on here. I bet he gets more media coverage for dropping out than he got during his entire campaign. I reckon he runs for another post this cycle.

As a side note, Peter Bray is wrong about Merkley. Merkley's been incredibly active, visible and out there campaigning hard since the morning after the primary. And defeating Gordon Smith is the most important environmental thing on the ballot, period.

While I realize Merkley is out there and YOU realize Merkley is out there I would argue that the average Oregon voter doesn't know Merkley is out there. I've been subjected to a barrage of Gordo ads on TV and I wonder when we're going to start seeing some Merkley stuff out there. By out there I mean not on the intertubes.

"While I realize Merkley is out there and YOU realize Merkley is out there, I would argue that the average Oregon voter doesn't know Merkley is out there."

Amen!

Merkley himself said the race doesn't start until you get on TV.

By Merkley's own standards, Gordon Smith is on the track rounding the corners, and Merkley is still in his stall eating hay. Smith's got enough money to keep this up all the way through November.

Where's all the help from the national party?

I notice most here selfishly views cheerily because their only consideration is how it helps Merkley. And of course the reason is that you all know that if Frohnmayer stayed in the race Merkley was going to have a tough time because Frohnmayer was talking substantively about principles and issues that exposed Merkley and his supporters for the bankruptcy of values they represent. Merkley is a typical example of the kind of self-serving Democrats like Clinton whose character and actual political actions are what have damaged our Party, not the issues for which they mouth support. As they always say: "words are cheap".

In this regard, I always find it interesting that Carl Wolfson and Thom Hartmann on KPOJ would always mention in passing how Frohnmayer had it over Merkely on several issues, but never had the personal integrity to give fair discussion about Frohnmayer versus Merkley on the issues. And it's easily shown they are just making hypocritical excuses when they claim it's because they can't get the candidates to come on their show: The Shrub has NEVER been on their show, and Smith has been on their show precious little but that doesn't stop them from devoting nearly 100% of their air time, to slamming them (as they should), and talking up our presumptive Presidential nominee Obama and Merkley.

I was never pro Frohnmayer, but I was very interested in hearing his views on issues over the course of the campaign to see if he is a credible alternative to Merkley whose self-serving record makes him an prime example of that class of candidates who have so failed our Party. Merkley views on the issues are unsophisticated and largely reflect venal political calculations. Obama has been accused of that, but in fact he has actually stood up to the factions of our Party that owns Merkley, and that is the key difference.

Stephanie V: I'll likely be undervoting if it looks clear that Obama will win and I'll be out there encouraging disgusted, principled Democrats to make that fine calculation as the path to cleaning up our Party. With a Dem in the WH, we face a real danger of the corrupt factions of our Party capitalizing on that to the detriment of us all. Read this: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/11/america/11clinton.php to understand exactly the kind of internal corrupt power struggles we face.

Merkley is now owned by the interests mentioned in this article who aren't happy with the power shifts in the Party, the beliefs of the truly uniformed that comment here notwithstanding. Remember: Wyden cowardly didn't endorse Obama until AFTER Obama had bagged the nomination and Merkley is totally dependent on the DSCC branch of the Party for funding who pretty much bought the primary for him with ad expenditures in the closing days of the campaign.

A closing comment: I say shame on all of you for taking selfish pleasure in this lost opportunity for all of us in the Democrat party the chance to actually do some necessary soul-searching about our values and what we need to do to fix our broken country.

All of the knowledgeable inside-politics folks on this blog will likely attack me for saying it, but as a regular citizen who looks for true peace advocates to support, I am sad to see John Frohnmayer leave the race. I never heard the passionate denunciation of this illegal war and those who voted for it (including Dems) from any of the other candidates like I did from Frohnmayer. It is maybe the most important issue of the upcoming election, and he was the loudest and most consistent voice --from the beginning until now-- against the war. I will end up voting for Merkley since no one else is left standing against Smith, but without the certainty that he will stand up against the pressure to "go along" that other Dems seemed to have succumbed to before, just as we face a reprise in the rush to war.

Suppose this has anything to do with his brother Dave "transforming" UO into a National Nike sports arms race joke/state budget buster?

Suppose this has anything to do with his brother Dave "transforming" UO into a National Nike sports arms race joke/state budget buster?

Good news, even better news the Constitution Party has a candidate.

There is a reader post about this on TPM:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/capitali-independent-frohnmaye.php

Full disclosure: my husband posted it.

Oh wait, I mean, FULL disclosure: my family members are the organizers of the Independent Party. Don't complain to me about this, it has caused almost as much arguing among us as the question of whether or not the 2000 election had a spoiler.

selenesmom:

The TPM post claims Frohnmayer was traditionally a registered "R". That is incorrect. From 1995-2004 he was a registered "D". Before that he was a registered "R". In this campaign he espoused positions that were fairly characterized as "D". I think his switch to an "I" demonstrates an intellectual honesty not commonly seen in Oregon these days or on these pages: Just contrast that to Westlund, who as a "D" continues to espouse corrupt conservative "R" positions on taxes and pro-big-business positions after he couldn't fulfill his own personal political ambitions as an "i".

The word I heard about Frohnmayer's campaign is that labor refused to back him, despite his strong support for certain "public" positions of labor like single-payer health insurance. They felt they in fact had a much bigger hold on Merkley and they can play political ball quite nicely with the DSCC/DLC. Care to speak to that? Specifically, was the SEIU, AFSCME, and AFL-CIO on board with Frohmayer on health care reform, or were they willing to throw that issue overboard, along with all of us, for other political considerations?

bobo:

Thanks for your interest. I'll let the author of the TPM post respond. I didn't write it. I just read it and told him it would get a bigger audience if he linked here. He asked me to please make the link since I was at the computer at the time.

BTW he says that for whatever reason the TPM post showed up under his RL name instead of his screen name, which was not his intention. I wasn't there when he made the post so don't have anything to say about that either, except that once I linked to it from here, I felt I had to out myself too (to some extent).

carla axtman - you are probably one of the least informed and most vacuous people who have posted here.

First you are just ignorant in your assertion about Wyden's knowledge. His "knowledge" in fact is as a viewpoint of the wing of the Democratic Party that is owned by the private health insurance and health care industry. As is well known in the health care reform advocacy community, the largest share of his campaign contributions actually comes from just the three industry sectors that largely or totally includes those industries.

Sanders, for one, out distances Wyden is his knowledge as anyone who has had the chance to witness Wyden's deer-in-the-headlights look (frequently followed by an off-camera snarl) when he is pressed on health care issues that are outside of his frame as a paid representative of those industry sectors protecting their franchise. He schtick about how the industry doesn't like his plan is one of the most notable examples of a pure propaganda pitch of the current times. Ron knows who butters his bread and it is a deal he is quite happy with.

Second, your presentation of why the unions won't support single-payer in fact actually provides support for why they are being dishonest in their claimed support of single-payer. (Of course part of that is also to try to dishonestly use the issue to get support from public who polls show do support single-payer.)

It is also an attempt to mislead the reader. I think the only answer someone of your obvious limitations deserve is this: The unions claim to be on board with Democrats because they stand for working people. In fact, Wyden is shopping his plan to Republicans and the very kind of Democrats who come in for criticism as Republicans-in-political-drag who are no friends of labor because his plan is a sellout of everything we stand for as Democrats. What that says about organized labor (and particularly the national SEIU) as a true friend of Democrats and working people right now in this election cycle is left to the reader to ponder with what should be dismay.

Boy carla, you really are far more of a jackass than I even imagined.

However, here's a site where you can knock yourself out:

www.pnhp.org

and here's an article about doctors for the adults in the audience to read:

Most doctors support national health insurance, new study shows (2008) http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/march/most_doctors_support.php

and on about how real Democrats roll:

Democrats in Colorado, New Hampshire back single-payer health plan http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/may/democrats_in_colorad.php

Also From the NY Times:

Poll Shows Majority Back Health Care for All http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html

38. Which do you think would be better for the country: 1. Having one health insurance program covering all Americans that would be administered by the government and paid for by taxpayers, OR 2. Keeping the current system where many people get their insurance from private employers and some have no insurance.

One program - 47% Current system - 38% Combination (vol) - 4% (This is close to Wyden's plan) Neither (vol.) -2% DK/NA - 8%

(Rasmussen ran a poll that asked the question in a way that was manifestly prejudicial, but those who like the results clearly won't care if the poll is constructed honestly.)

Are you the same "carla" who is supposedly doing netroots outreach for Merkley? I am assuming not (and frankly he should be hoping not.)

Oh, and by the way carla:

Lewin Group analysis of Sen. Wyden's plan http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/december/lewin_group_analysis.php

Wyden's "Healthy Americans Act" is Wrong Model for Health Reform http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/february/wydens_healthy_ame.php

Universal Health for Insurance Companies http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/march/universal_health_for.php

Here's a little bit on the attitudes of the private insurers Wyden and Carla want to require by law that we all have to buy insurance from:

Insurers choose between profits and members Health plans say they’ll risk losing members to protect profit margins http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/may/insurers_choose_betw.php

Finally, the health care quiz of the day:

As you'll read in the second article about about Wyden's plan, one of his key arguments is that once the government relieves private employers of any legal or moral responsibility to provide health insurance for their employees and we are all legally mandated to buy private health insurance, employers are supposed to give us a raise from some of their savings so we can buy that insurance ourselves. (No joke)

So here's the question:

What 2008 candidate for President has EXACTLY the same principle as a key component of his health care plan?

Answer:

John McCain (no joke)

Nice Republican health care plan you're backing their carla. And like I said before, the rest of us can decide what that really says about unions who have signed on to support Merkley who has said he will sign on as a co-sponsor to Wyden's plan.

Chris, you're presentation here has a certain amount of spin to it that is beneath you.

SEIU has never claimed to support single-payer. Andy Stern has specifically repudiated it, much to his shame. The AFL-CIO has adopted it but not exclusively, I believe, but strongly enough that the California Nurses Association thought it worthwhile to join the federation after long being independent

The national SEIU and Stern reject single-payer. SEIU locals in Oregon in fact have broken with the national over health care reform by at least claiming they do. The AFL-CIO national has officially endorsed single-payer as their position. Tom Chamberlain, president of the Oregon AFL-CIO who sits on the SB-329 board, has taken single-payer off the table in SB-329 deliberations with the full support of the Oregon AFL-CIO. The CNA supports single-payer wholeheartedly and is in a quite public fight with the SEIU national over single-payer.

My language and point is that different labor organizations (except for CNA) have played very nasty, politically cynical games around single-payer. Except for the CNA that has made a public stand, 'organized labor' (and each organization refers to themselves as 'organized labor' or just 'labor') claim to support it when and in ways it is politically expedient, but 'labor' isn't there when it counts. Such is the case of how they have all liined up behind Democrats like Wyden and Merkley REGARDLESS of their position on health care, when there have been other Democratic candidates in races across the country who support single-payer. Like Novick who at least said he would introduce single-payer legislation of some form even as he also supported Wyden. As fully pwned politicians, Wyden and Merkley are nothing more than the "good-cop" in the industry's "good-cop, bad-cop" scam to keep a system which rips us all off for their own enrichment. People here need to know that when they think that 'labor' support for Wyden and Merkley somehow is support for progressive health care report. It most definitely is not, and support ranges from a view these Democrats positions on health care can be overlooked to someone like Stern who actually agrees with the industry.

Like I said in the previous comment, in a key way Wyden-Merkley is actually on the same side of the debate as McCain in their proposal to eliminate any kind of employer provided insurance and dumping it all on us to buy from the private market. The disgusting surprise (or maybe not?) is that it's McCain who at least says we shouldn't be legally forced to spend ourselves broke to enrich the industry. Just read the analysis I cited. And people who stupidly will scream troll because I call BS on sell-out Wyden-Merkley style non-Democrats, we aren't talking here about a mythical race between McCain and Merkley. We're just talking here about whether Wyden and Merkley actually are representative of a problem in the Democratic party.

She was. She is no longer. We had a whole post about that. Are you even reading this blog? Or just trolling specific posts?

Kari, it may surprise you, but most of us have real lives and don't hang on every word here. We try to read the posts that we perceive to be relevant to political matters we have some connection with and understanding of. I think a candidate leaving the race is in that category. I also tend to avoid "hot gossip" posts which your description of the post I must have missed would appear to me on a quick scan as I look for "issue" posts that might contain one or two valuable comments. Calling that trolling is an example of a certain problem with BO that in fact does give it that image in the public eye of being a little less than a serious venue. So no I don't read every post because the signal to noise ratio here is very low indeed.

Listen, I support single payer. I'm just not willing to wait another 50 years to get it. (blah, blah)

(Since people like to throw "troll" around, just step back for a moment and think about whether this has the sound of an industry flack troll.)

You repeat here what undoubtedly is the single most intellectually dishonest, focus-group tested, PR spin message that the Merkley and Wyden camp repeat in defense of their whoring for the industry. The industry is under pressure right now because they have broken our country. Readers need to understand that Wyden and Merkley (and you because you are involved in the communications part of the effort through your business) are part of the industry's effort to fight back. Yea, they're not 100% happy with Wyden's plan because it isn't what they had, but just like everything in politics they are now fighting for the best deal they can get.

From their viewpoint, the Wyden/Merkley/Chisholm plan is in fact just part of the tactical political positioning every industry with big bucks and power always pursue to preserve their nut. If they prevail, it's a far bigger win for them than any loss Wyden/Merkley/Chisholm spin it as because it would cement three things into public policy for the rest of my lifetime: 1) The principle that our system should be based on over-priced private health insurance, 2) the elimination of any public health coverage system that doesn't have a powerful political constituency (e.g. except Medicare), and 3) the thesis that is socially acceptable to legally mandate that we all have to buy private health insurance and enrich the industry.

<h2>As the industry sees it, once they get Wyden/Merkley/Chisholm and the bucks start rolling in again, they will then be well-prepared from a position of strength to take on any public backlash and use people like you in their effort to marginalize Democrats who actually stand for genuine progressive reforms. I think the comments from the industry spokesperson cited above tell us all we need to know about Wyden and Merkley as they try to spin us into supporting their effort to require us to do business with these guys.</h2>