Kari, the poll might be a bit more meaningful if there were some type of trend analysis. Is this moth up or down for Obama and Wyden? Does Wyden traditionally trend better than the President? over the past several months is Obama holding ground, slipping or gaining in Oregon?

Alright, I guess I get why Wyden has high numbers, but why is Jeff Merkley in 43 - 43 land? That makes for a barnburner in 2014 if he doesn't turn it around. And why is Jeff lagging behind Wyden with Liberals?

I am a little surprised by Wyden's strength with liberals in this state, if the Survey USA numbers are to be believed.

56% is pretty darn good. But Wyden's performance in the next few weeks might have an impact on those numbers for good or ill. If he helps to save the day for health care, he will be a hero. If he's a corporate shill and sides with the GOP in shooting it down, the unions and progressives will come out full force against him.

Obama's numbers aren't bad either in Oregon. His national Gallup numbers today are 55%.If he can pull health care out of the hat, he will be sitting good.

Wyden's numbers are not surprising..he's there for life if he wants it. Merkley's numbers are also not surprising, he was upside down in his approve/disapprove on the day he got elected...he rode the Obama tide and eeked out a narrow win, but make no mistake..he is the David Wu of our senate delegation, but without the protection of a one-party congressional district to keep him in office. Whether it's a challenge in the Dem primary in 2014 or re-match with Smith in the general, Merkley will be done after this term....there are few certainties in politics, but that is one of them. With such a deep bench of talented Democrats in Oregon, the fact that Merkley is occupying that seat is pretty embarrassing, he's not well liked by his constituents and not well respected in the Senate. One of the biggest problems with political waves is that a lot of people get swept into office in them who really have no business being there (certainly there were many Republicans in '94 who got in that way)....Merkley is just one of the most recent examples..and it's unfortunate we are stuck with this guy for 5 more years....re-call anyone?

"56% is pretty darn good. But Wyden's performance in the next few weeks might have an impact on those numbers for good or ill. If he helps to save the day for health care, he will be a hero. If he's a corporate shill and sides with the GOP in shooting it down, the unions and progressives will come out full force against him."

Bill, even if every union member and self-described progressive were to say that his work on health care makes Wyden worse than Packwood (hardly likely, since some of those union members followed Packwood's career very closely and endorsed him in 1986), you can't beat somebody with nobody.

"Coming out in full force" requires an alternative candidate. Who might that be?

thanks Kari, I understand the data better now. Wyden and Obama holding steady in Oregon.

I personally am a progressive Democrat of several decades and I vastly prefer Merkley to Wyden so far for supporting a public option! (And I initially wanted Novick). Wyden really disappoints me in sticking to his tired old bill with Repug Bennett. It might've been the best he could do with Cheney-Bush in power but it's woefully inadequate and conservative TODAY.

Wisefemme is stating the reason I am surprised by Wyden's numbers with Democrats and liberals. Despite the most recent skirmishes over Wyden and public option, he is significantly stronger with both groups in the poll.

Liberals give Wyden a job approval score of 62 - 31. Liberals give Merkley a job approval score of 50 - 41!

Democrats give Wyden a score of 67-26. Democrats give Merkley a score of 59 - 31. This one is less surprising because there are a lot of moderate Democrats in this state.

Admittedly, Wyden has done a lot of good, liberal policy over the years, but good grief! I thought more liberals would be in Jeff's camp given his strong defense of the public option.

I mean, lets face it. After seeing how badly Gordon Smith and the republican party botched the process of governing over the past eight years, I think although he's far from a perfect senator, Wyden's greatest asset in popularity is that he's simply not a republican.

Merkley has a way to go but if Gordon Smith can be a Senator, anybody can.

Haha...yes Kari, I'm sure you're right on this one. Merkley's number's are in the toilet b/c of all those Oregonians who are sitting at home re-playing tv commercials from a YEAR ago in their heads or on their TIVO...it has nothing to do with Merkley himself. Get serious dude...Merkley's number's are bad because he is not, and has never been very well liked or respected. That's not a partisan shot, Wyden clearly has the respect and support of most Oregonians...but Merkley is simply an amateur misfit who barely won the Democratic primary and then skated into office (barely) on Obama's huge coattails. If you think there isn't a truly qualified Dem in the state who won't take a shot at unseating him in the 2014 primary in order to protect the seat from the Republicans, your political compass is off course. If Merkley isn't removed in the primary, a qualified GOP candidate (like a gordon smith, scott bruun, etc) could and would take him out...and there are a lot of Democrats out there who know this. Oregonians may bleed deep blue, but more than that they want a serious person in that seat..Jeff is not that person...mark my words on this one and I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

JJ wrote: " If Merkley isn't removed in the primary, a qualified GOP candidate (like a gordon smith, scott bruun, etc) could and would take him out."

I am guessing you are not cutting and pasting a comment of yours prior to last November?

I have to agree with Kari and Lee. It's absolutely normal for a new statewide winner to take up to 3 years to solidify his/her support (even with their own side) after a bruising contest. Merkley will be just fine, if for no other reason than as an incumbent, he'll be near unbeatable.

@ LT

Wyden has no reason to be complacent. And unions are organization. If Wyden blows it, he may be primaried. And in primaries the motivated are the ones who show up. Ron Wyden has enjoyed the support of the AFL-CIO, and they promise to actively oppose any Dem. who shoots down health care. In this instance I'm thinking if Wyden were to join a filibuster, or refuse to vote yes on a budget reconciliation bill, there would be opposition, and a primary. So if Wyden wants to fill himself with hubris and think he's untouchable, without being held accountable by his constituency, then, yes, he's vulnerable. As is anyone.

Why does anyone in their right mind think that Wyden is going to side with Republicans in a filibuster. Has he ever sided with the Republicans in a filibuster? Ever? I am quite certain the answer is no.

I think we can all stipulate that if Wyden turns into Kevin Mannix and monkeys fly from his butt, we will all work to defeat him in a primary. But the chances of that are roughly equivalent to the whole monkey scenario.

@Mark McGaffin-" Why does anyone in their right mind think that Wyden is going to side with Republicans in a filibuster."

When Wyden sides with the GOP in attacking the Dem. health care plan (on KGW TV) for putting seniors at risk, when he undermines the public option, when he promotes a bipartisanship that is delay and obstruct, when he takes the big money from BlueCross, then anything is possible, especially if he is so filled with hubris he thinks his constituency will swallow anything.

Oh! I get it! Good Democrats never question the wording of popular legislation.

Howard Dean said in a bookstore presentation shown on CSPAN that there are several good additions the Blue Dogs made to the House bill, "although I know they are not popular in some quarters".

I'm guessing that if you tried to push a primary challenger to Wyden based on what Wyden said in a KGW interview about a piece of legislation, you wouldn't get very far.

@ LT

You are distorting what I said. First of all Wyden did not criticize the "wording" of a bill, he criticized a central provision which is cutting excess Medicare subsidies to private insurers( the kind that makes it possible for the scooter makers to advertise and overcharge Medicare) and feeding the Republican "deather" meme that Democrats are out to pull the plug on granny by shortchanging seniors to pay for the health care bill.

Secondly I did not say he would be primaried for an interview, but that he would be primaried if he sabotaged a health care bill, which I hope won't happen, but is entirely possible.

I appreciate your loyalty to Ron Wyden and the fact you know him personally, but he doesn't appear to be helping the effort right now. I will be happy to be proven wrong.

Lee Coleman..thanks for your..ugh..insights or whatever. I don't doubt that you do know some of the potential republican candidates that I mentioned (bruun, smith)...I know that you used to be a Republican before you threw a flag burning hissy fit and decided that you hate america and those who fight and die to defend it....as a Republican, i can assure you that you are not missed, clown...so go sound like the washed up jackass that you are someplace else...no one really cares to hear your garbage anymore...not even here.

Merkley's numbers speak for themselves..if you want to defend them or fake outrage over the assertion that they are weak...knock yourself out, but those of us who follow this stuff know that this dude is in serious trouble, he's not a serious senator...and the 5 years he has remaining in this term will be his last....there is really no room for debate on this one...it's a done deal.

At this point, the Survey USA numbers are meaningless. The question is irrelevant to what motivates voters and he's an incumbent. The real fight over health care reform, the issue which he has gotten on the seriously wrong side of and which will end his career if he doesn't make some radical changes soon, will have only begun with Obama's address to Congress. In this health care reform fight, whenever Wyden has a chance to present himself to the public through true progressive media outlets, he only makes himself look worse. He so transparently tries to spin the opportunity to argue for his non-progressive position that he comes across mainly as thinking we in the public are too stupid too see what he is trying to do. He now just looks like another disgusting politician out to screw all of us for his own benefit and the fat cats who donate to his campaign.

If Wyden sticks with his current position, and specifically if he supports a bill which has the kind of absolute mandate such as he put in Sect. 102 of his own bill but doesn't have a strong public option, he will have a Democratic primary opponent. Even if he wins the primary, he will have been shown to no longer actually be aligned with any functional majority of the electorate. The result will be that enough Democrats will stay home that he will have to have third-party, HAV, and Republican votes. His support for a mandate --- which Republicans, Libertarians, and small-government NAVs as of this week are already making their next rallying cry against health care reform because it will be enforced by the IRS --- will cause his vote percentages from those factions to be the smallest it ever has been and will not be enough for him to win.

So it's all going to come down to Wyden's support, or not, for a mandate. If he supports a mandate, even with a public option, his "Free Choice Proposal" will be shown to have been the cheap political ploy and sneer at us that we already know it is. Here's a promise Kari: true-blue Democratic grassroots activists such as myself will make sure he is branded, truthfully, as exactly the "big government" proponent who wants to take away our true free choice when it comes to health care, just as Republicans and independents right now are saying. Of course, since Wyden has become just another politician, it is entirely possible he'll change his position to whatever it takes to get re-elected.

(By the way, confirmed with Wyden's office in recent days he still would fight for a mandate, but not for a public option. Also confirmed with Merkley's office that he is OPPOSED to a mandate and continues to make a public option a requirement. Of course, we'll have to keep the political pressure on him to keep that position.)

So if Survey USA was a credible polling organization, they would ask if people would support Wyden or a Democratic primary challenger if Wyden supports a mandate but doesn't work for a public option.

Senator Wyden has betrayed us. Why should we give him any kind words as he attempts to kill us by insurance? It's okay to take the bribe from the insurance companies if you don't do something else wrong? This site is not progressive. The definition might be "regressive" as you seek to excuse behavior of someone that is supposed to represent the people? Please, show me how wrong I am?

Do you know how many times over the years Wyden haters have tried to brand him a corporate tool, threaten third party opponents, etc.? The guy has had third-party opponents every race he has ever run, and I don't think you could find a more bruising primary opponent than Peter DeFazio who challenged Wyden in 1996 /which was then followed by a Pacific Green opponent, I believe/. Wyden is much stronger in the state today than he was in 1996, and he prevailed even back in bruising conditions in 1996. So huff and puff all you want, but here is my prediction: if Reid produces a public option health bill and brings it for a vote, Wyden will vote for it. You and a few of your pals will continue to grouse about Wyden not being pure enough, and you will rant on BlueOregon a few hundred more times, as usual, to no effect.

The reason that Wyden's numbers are so much higher with liberals in the state than even Merkley /who is doing a great and quite liberal job/, is because Wyden is an effective liberal. Your particular brand of parsing his record doesn't carry much stock with everyday liberals in this state. They want to know where the senator is on peace, energy policy, equality, choice, civil liberties, the environment, tax fairness, consumer protection. While Wyden may not be perfect on every single issue, they know that objectively speaking he is one of the most liberal members of the U.S. Senate, and he is really good at his job.

As for your peculiar obsession with Wyden's belief in an individual mandate for health insurance, do you remember another great liberal who endorsed an individual mandate? Here's a hint - he just passed away and was mourned not only by all liberals, but the nation.

As for your peculiar obsession with Wyden's belief in an individual mandate for health insurance, do you remember another great liberal who endorsed an individual mandate? Here's a hint - he just passed away and was mourned not only by all liberals, but the nation.

Here's exactly why the kind of people out there right now propagandizing for Wyden are not to be believed: Do you Mark McGaffin know why that great liberal also was not a co-sponsor, nor even a supporter, of Ron Wyden's bill? And why his committee passed a bill as a political statement before the Finance Committee on which Wyden sits and is also playing a role in shaping that committee's bill?

The reason? Because that great --- true --- liberal was for the strongest possible public option - letting everybody into Medicare or a 100% equivalent program. In other words -- making medical care a right, so that a "mandate" is all but moot as people gratefully flock to a public option. And it's their attitude towards that real choice, and the fact people would exercise it, that defines the great divide between Wyden's values and Kennedy's values.

My position is in fact on Kennedy's side of that divide: If we have a public option like Kennedy supported, and Wyden has not so far supported, you'll have such large number of people join you won't need a mandate. Wyden, on the other hand, is much more interested in making sure people are forced into insurance companies arms with a mandate than actually building a system people will choose for themselves. In other words, if Wyden supports a mandate without a strong public option, he is actually making a stand over a mandate. Kennedy was making a fight for a strong public option, so the mandate was a disagreement, but one that would become increasingly moot.

Here's a Salon story that Kennedy wanted the public option so people can see just how dishonest Wyden supporters trying to wrap Wyden in the Kennedy legacy to deceive us Democrats actually are.

So Mark, you, like Kari, need to be careful trying to propagandize for Wyden. At lot of us obviously are far better informed than you. And supporters like you just make Wyden look worse and as the empty suit politician he is. He even tried the Republican trick of giving his recent proposal the deceiving name of "Free Choice Proposal". But it completely contrary to Kennedy's "Affordable Health Choices Act" which gives us a true choice of a public plan, his "Free Choice Proposal" doesn't even address that true free choice. And by the way Mark, we also know Ron Wyden has been an impotent advocate most of the supposed "liberal" causes you cite off so smugl: He even voted for John Roberts confirmation to the Supreme Court and nastily criticized progressives here in Oregon who were opposing Roberts.

We know Ron's true record Mark. As I said, he will be held accountable by true Democrats in the primary season if he has fought for a mandate WITHOUT a robust public option that people will be clamoring to join even without a mandate. Republicans, Libertarians, and NAVs in the general election will vote against him.

My point was about your whining about Wyden's support of an individual mandate. Kennedy supported one for Mass. and his liberal credentials still seem intact. You couldn't dispute my argument, so you deflected. Blah, blah, blah.

Wyden is extremely popular with liberals in this state and for good reason. And it kills you, Too Early. Never too early to blowhard, I'd say.

Do I have to remind people that on this very website appeared a statement from Wyden's staff that he was open to a public option?

This is why it is time to start voting shortly after the Senate returns from recess.

Get a bill out of Sen. Finance. Have the House and Senate floor votes--with real live Senate fillibusters by those who won't provide the 60 votes for some provision. Bring in the cots. Have all night or all weekend sessions if necessary. Fish or cut bait. Put up or shut up.

Slogans don't solve problems, votes solve problems. It is within the lifetime of some of us older folks that the Obamas and the Bidens would not have been able to stay in the same hotel or live in the same neighborhood because of skin color. That all changed only 41 years ago with the passage of the Open Housing bill. That didn't happen with sloganeering or guessing how someone would vote. It came with an actual vote after, and in some extent in tribute to, the killing of Dr. Martin Luther King.

And as far as the Kennedy mantle is concerned, one of his biggest legacies is that he had no grudges against anyone, and he was able to socialize with people who didn't vote the same way he did. In that way, Wyden does follow in Kennedy's footsteps, which I can understand may anger some partisans.

And any of you with the attitude of "if he doesn't vote correctly, forget you ever knew him", that hardline attitude alienates more people than it attracts to a cause. In some cases, people have been known to change registration to NAV rather than be told "to be a good Democrat, you must---".

bird, here are the numbers on health industry campaign contributions according to OpenSecrets.org:

Wyden career - $1,042,000 Obama career - $15,553,000

The Obama health reform plan keeps private insurance solidly in control.

I'm just sayin.

and specifically if he supports a bill which has the kind of absolute mandate such as he put in Sect. 102 of his own bill but doesn't have a strong public option,

Given that the issue that I raised is that the question I raised about Wyden's values if he votes for a bill that has a combination of a mandate but no public option, while Kennedy supported a mandate that has a very different meaning because he also demanded a public option, we see the utter vacuousness McGaffin's assertion:

My point was about your whining about Wyden's support of an individual mandate. Kennedy supported one for Mass. and his liberal credentials still seem intact.

Liberal credentials all come down to the total context of a position. If he doesn't change it, Wyden's total position on the mandate has a very regressive, no-true-choice, right-wing nature, and we will hold him accountable in the election for it, while Kennedy's has a true-choice, liberal nature. The real question about Wyden supporters like McGaffin is whether the maxim applies: "Never attribute to ill-will what can more easily be explained by ignorance."

the numbers:

bird, here are the numbers on health industry campaign contributions according to OpenSecrets.org: Wyden career - $1,042,000 Obama career - $15,553,000 The Obama health reform plan keeps private insurance solidly in control. I'm just sayin.

You're just saying what: Are you supporting Wyden or dissin' Obama before we here his proposal on next Wednesday? I'm skeptical Obama is going to be there fight for a public option, but can't say for sure yet.

But your presentation of the numbers is meaningless at best, misleading at worst, because you don't explain what point you are supporting. Here are the numbers that are more informative in their own right:

Wyden: In 2003-2008 (can't get another breakdown), 10% of his total contributions were from the Insurance industry and the Hospital/Nursing home industry. Throw in Health Care professionals and it's 16%. In 2008-2010, the numbers are 13% and 21% respectively.

Obama: Before he announced for president, 11% of of his total contributions were from the Insurance and Hospital/Nursing home industries, with health professionals it was 24%. After he announced for President the numbers were 4% and 8% respectively.

I think we get a pretty clear idea who is financially more beholden to the private health care industry.

To early---Ron and I were fellow 1984 Democratic National Convention delegates. I've spent thousands of hours as a Democratic volunteer. I don't throw old friends over the side just because some blogger (or even someone I have known for years) tells me that over a single issue I should no longer support someone I helped elect. I am not, however, a union member or a self-described "liberal". I think the last liberal was Ted Kennedy, and he had better manners than you and a lot of people on blogs.

I wonder how many Democratic campaigns you have worked on. Or are you all rhetoric and no hard campaign work? One reason I dropped out of active participation in Democratic party politics was the people who never showed up to do the basic "grunt work" of grassroots politics, but by golly they were ready to tell everyone who was a "real" Democrat and who wasn't. I even had an essay on that subject once published in a Democratic county newspaper. Have you ever been published by any Democratic print or online publication? Are you a pct. person?

Here's a blurb from the back cover of Azzam Tamimi's book, "Hamas: A History From Within":

"This is an important book, and I encourage both Israelis and diaspora Jews to read it...We may not necessarily agree with many of its ideas, but it is only if we gain a deeper understanding...of the Islamists' agenda that we will have a chance to transform the Palestine-Israel conflict and discover a common desire to bring an end to violence." - Gabrielle Rifkind, specialist in conflict resolution and human security

And here's a blurb from me:

"This book by Azzam Tamimi is the most in-depth account of the Hamas movement that is available in the English language. Read it and ask Ron Wyden incisive questions, which he will not answer."

Meaningless? Hardly. I could care less what percentage of their campaign money comes from those who profit from for-profit health interests. I want the whole damn money chase to end and public financing to begin. My other point is that if we are going to judge one politician for taking health bucks we have to apply that standard to all. Both Obama and Wyden have plans that would leave the private insurance companies firmly in control. Regulated finally, but still profiting plenty. Yet I don't think Obama is a corporate tool and I don't think Wyden is, either, though they both participate in the same flawed campaign finance system. They just happen to be pursuing a course that might pass and not the course I prefer.

"I don't think Obama is a corporate tool and I don't think Wyden is, either, though they both participate in the same flawed campaign finance system. They just happen to be pursuing a course that might pass and not the course I prefer. "

Wise words. I happen to be old enough to know that not all civil rights bills passed in one big omnibus bill, with Voting Rights coming years before Open Housing.

I have heard the Ted Kennedy creed was "pass what you can pass this year, and then with all the items you lost on this year, say "see you next year" and keep plugging".

I think that would be wise, but then I belong to the "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" persuasion.

I wonder how many Democratic campaigns you have worked on. Or are you all rhetoric and no hard campaign work?

Very possibly more than you LT. Including Ted Kennedy's 1980 primary campaign against Carter that ended with that famous speech at the 1980 convention. I think we see exactly how Ted Kennedy set the example of why those of us who ARE still Democrats need to hold Wyden accountable if he does support the most un-Democratic of positions: a mandate that forces each of us, with the coercive power of the IRS, to do business with the private insurance industry without the choice of a public option.

Let's reduce it to really simple terms even pathetic cases like you and McGaffin can't hide from if Wyden continues his previous position

Merkley/me = anti-mandate/pro-public option = pro-liberty/true-choice/lower cost Kennedy = pro-mandate/pro-public option = some choice/cost? Wyden = pro-mandate/no commitment to public option = anti-liberty/no-choice/at the mercy of the insurance industry

I think that would be wise, but then I belong to the "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" persuasion.

Rather than put up with tiresome, whining, idiotic accusations by people like McGaffin and LT for standing up to their moronic BS, I'll just requote Charlie Pierce from a thread Carla started:

The perfect should not be the enemy of the good? Maybe not, but the good has many actual enemies. Evil is the enemy of the good. Greed is the enemy of the good. Ignorance is the enemy of the good. Cowardice is the enemy of the good. How's about, just once, somebody worries about those enemies of the good, all of which are amply in evidence in the campaign to make sure we never reform the criminally negligent and morally indefensible way we deliver healthcare in this country?

I think we can see whose side Wyden and his propagandists are on in this battle for the good are actually on if he backs an anti-choice bill with a mandate but no strong public health insurance program anyone can choose on day 1.

Meaningless? Hardly. I could care less what percentage of their campaign money comes from those who profit from for-profit health interests. I want the whole damn money chase to end and public financing to begin. My other point is that if we are going to judge one politician for taking health bucks we have to apply that standard to all.

Oh grow up.

The real world is about shades of gray and having to fight aggressively just to keep the powerless from being devoured by the powerful. There are a whole lot of reasons, some of them not rooted in bad intent, why we aren't going to have the kind of adolescent, "just make it all go away because I can't cope", campaign finance reform you retreat to in an effort avoid the true responsibility we have as voters in a representative democracy.

Of course Obama is first and foremost a friend of corporate America, and in this health care debate Wyden is vastly more so. Those are just the facts. That has absolutely no bearing on whether we the people can make them do the right thing by making the simple proposition clear that they may keep the jobs they really do want in the worst way is if they do the right thing. And the condescending, arrogant attitude that it's all those other stupid voters who are too blame is nothing but a cop out: Part of the deal is that we also have to stand up to supposed friends and political allies to hold them just as accountable as the politicians.

The only meaning there is in politics is in making distinctions between degrees of corruption as politicians inevitably let their egos run away with them and keeping their power increasingly becomes their primary motivation. Supporting those who still have some degree of desire to do good and working hard to get out of office those who are abandoning that desire is what it's about.

Too Early---my first Democratic involvement was a weekly shift at the local Democratic Party office for the 1974 general election, and numerous shifts over the years at the state fair. Straub for Gov. campaign 1974. Roberts for Gov. Runkle in 1976 and Faatz in 1978 for State Rep. Hill and Courtney for St. Rep. in 1980 and 1982. Gray for Congress, 1982. I had friends who were Kennedy delegates in 1980, incl. one whose memorial service I spoke at a year ago. Hart for President 1984, local volunteer coordinator and national convention delegate. Pct. person and member of 5th Dist. and State Central Comm. 1985-88. Roberts for Gov. 1986. Lonsdale for Senate 1992 and 1996. Wyden for Senate, Jan. 1996.

If you want to "hold Wyden accountable" that is fine. But one thing I learned is that everyone has the right to make their own decisions about such things. The best people respect someone who stands up for their friends and for what they believe, and the rest of the people are not my problem. Wyden is an old friend of a quarter century, and I'm not going to take orders from a blogger, any more than I took orders from anyone on what to believe when I was active in campaigns. If that bothers you, not my problem. People have tried before to say "forget you ever knew that person" and all it did was convince me never to trust a person who says to throw your friends overboard over an issue.

If you want to "hold Wyden accountable" that is fine. But one thing I learned is that everyone has the right to make their own decisions about such things. The best people respect someone who stands up for their friends and for what they believe, and the rest of the people are not my problem.

I could care less if you believe Wyden is your friend What matters most is that he behaves now as little more than a typical politician who has an inflated ego and an air he is entitled to the job. As I noted above his performances in the media are nothing short of disgusting. If he supports a no-choice mandate with no strong public option he will be hurting people to benefit powerful interests we can only conclude he values more. Simple decency and morality requires he be challenged politically and that your arguments about sticking with a "friend" are really kind of sad.

You are an angry, out-of-touch, marginalized asshole and I need to grow up?

Everybody is stupider than you apparently, including the Oregon liberals (me included) who overwhelmingly think Wyden is doing a good job.

And no, I don't care about your shades of gray. The campaign finance system casts gray shadows on their every move, and some of them like the President and Wyden are good people who ought to fight to end the money chase because it would restore a lot of public confidence in their motives and decisions.

Thank you numbers!

Too early, I look forward to finding out who your candidate is to challenge Wyden. What you have written here is not likely to help that person win votes.

the numbers - Yea you do need to grow up. It's downright hilarious you complain about the money chase in politics, something which Obama and Wyden are skilled at as typical politicians. Then you whine about what they "ought" to do and lash out irrationally at those working to hold Wyden politically accountable. Once Obama lays his cards down this coming Wednesday night, we can decide how to respond politically.

My money right now is that Obama will come back down on the same side as Merkley and his original campaign promise: He will not support a mandate, but will support a public option. If he doesn't, he will be show himself to be just another venal politician like Wyden, damaging prospects for Democrats in 2010 and his reelection by not bringing about any meaningful reform of our failing health care system. The real question is whether Wyden is going to fight for the wrong side of history and morality, or come over to the Obama-Merkley side.

And "the numbers" and LT, you can rest assured significant political organizing is going on right now to do just that. Sometimes it's not about winning, but about making sure a politician who has sold his soul loses. I'll just point to Kennedy's run in 1980 primary was about something more important than winning the nomination for himself, and we all knew that at the time.

"Sometimes it's not about winning, but about making sure a politician who has sold his soul loses."

Gee, you sound like the sort of folks who convinced Steve Anderson to run against Al Ullman for Congress--Ways and Means chair from Oregon who had "lost touch with Oregonians".

Steve got 45% of the vote, GOP saw an opening and opened their coffers for Denny Smith, a 3rd candidate was a spoiler, and we ended up with Denny Smith in Congress for 10 years.

Now if you want to risk that, fine with me. But I will make my own decision about who I vote for next year, and no blogger will make that decision for me no matter what insults they use.

With regards to Wyden's poll numbers, how many of those surveyed are aware of the fact that Wyden has not come out in support of a public option?

Jeff Merkely, a strong supporter of a robust public option has received $16,000 in 2009 from Health PAC's; on the other hand, Wyden, whose HAA plan, in my opinion, is a giveaway to the insurance industry has received $132,000 from Health PAC's so far this year. These figures are from OpenSecrets.org.

In Wyden's interview with KGW, he didn't just promote his plan, he went out of his way to discredit the Democratic health care reform plan with less than honest assertions.

KPOJ extended numerous invitations to Wyden to be interviewed on their program. Until last week, he didn't just decline, he ignored their invitations. When he did agree to be interviewed last week, he cited the Lewin Group to support HAA.......the only other people citing the Lewin Group are Republicans. The Lewin Group is funded by United Health Care.

We'll see in the coming weeks who Sen. Wyden truly supports.....his constituents or the insurance industry.

I heard Wyden on KPOJ and he sure sounded extremely honest. He even was honest in answering that he didn't think Medicare would work as a platform for a public option (though I disagree), and I give him big credit for answering the question. Most politicians in the hot seat never answer the tough questions, especially when it means disagreeing with the host.

Don't mistake me. I want Wyden to support a full robust public option, which he says he is open to, but good for him for going on KPOJ and blowing the whistle on the wimpy House bills which are anything but. He cited HCAN's own numbers for how many people would be enrolled in the public option under the House bills, so I don't think he made anything up. Only 12 million people. That's all who would be in the vaunted Democratic public option under the House bills. Twelve million out of 250 million Americans not on Medicare or military care is pathetic.

Most of the long-time single payer supporters who have been duped into supporting this weak public option are going to revolt when they learn most of them can't even apply for it. Why we would waste any energy fighting over the public option when Democrats in Congress are intentionally preventing most Americans from getting it is beyond me. I will fight for a FRPO but I won't be a chump and fight for a weak substitute.

Since when do we on Blue Oregon criticize Democrats for blowing the whistle on other Democrats and Democratic bills? DeFazio was right to blow the whistle on the House cap and trade bill. Wyden was right to blow the whistle on the Democratic energy bill. I say good for them for not being mainstream lemmings.

Thank you, Mark.

"He even was honest in answering that he didn't think Medicare would work as a platform for a public option (though I disagree), and I give him big credit for answering the question."

BTW, if there was a "Medicare for all, using current reimbursement rates", folks in states like Oregon would have a tough time finding doctors to take them----states like NY get better reimbursements than states like Oregon. Do you propose to require all doctors to take all Medicare patients, even if the reimbursement process hurts their ability to stay in business?

And what about the idea of putting doctors on salary so they can care for patients and not just worry about the bottom line of their practice?

Of course the "we must have a public option, period end of discussion" folks don't want to look at those details.

I think maybe there should be 2 bills. One would be what most people across the spectrum see as only common sense--such as making it impossible for insurance companies to deny or dump patients for pre-existing conditions, for instance.

Then the more controversial stuff could be in another bill. Maybe if Mass. doesn't appoint a Senator this year and waits until the election, perhaps Sen. Snowe's trigger mechanism for public option could make her the 60th vote and get that passed.

I once was part of a team lobbying a bill for veterans in the legislature--the sort of thing members would vote for if it got to the floor, which is why opponents were trying to keep it in committee. It had an appropriation in it so a W & M co-chair was keeping it bottled up. A process was found to strip the money out of the bill (to be added later) and then W & M no longer had jurisdiction and another committee sent it to the floor.

That was not done by trying to peer pressure everyone into repeating a slogan. And Oregon went on record as the second state in the country to pass a bill like that.

I think this health care debate has descended into a debate between ideological purity and pragmatism. I'm a pragmatist. Passing a public option bill with a trigger would still be passing a public option bill, and if there was more support next year (say, with the new Mass. Senator) it could always be changed.