This is great to hear.  We need to beat Smith and the very idea that Wyden would not work hard against him was discouraging.  Hope that is put to rest.  Wyden deserves a stron Democrat as his junior senator.  

Good. The only two things I know about Wyden are the Fair Flat Tax Act of 2005 and the universal health care bill, two of the boldest, most transformatively progressive bills I'd ever come across (and two of the only bills I ever cared to read all the way through).

I see now it was only three days from first-report to correction... why did it feel like a week? maybe the cognitive-dissonance meter slows the passage of time.

I'm glad knowing that my original home state has one great Senator in Ron Wyden. I guess I did know that, but knowing that not only will he campaign for whichever Dem is nominated for Senate, but that he's such a believer of positive campaigning.

Great news. Thanks Jonathan for getting Josh to address the issue.

Glad Wyden doesn't think down is up, dry is wet.

I'd like to see him prove this by starting a general election Act Blue page.

Thanks, Jonathan, for putting this up.

There is no reason to beat up on Senator Wyden. Methinks the 'sphere is too ready with the pitchforks sometimes. He doesn't need to do anything to "prove" himself. He's always been there for us, he does more than his share, and he votes the "left" way almost all the time.

I have seen Senator Wyden during every election supporting every Democratic candidate. He supports the state party, he shows up to rally canvassers during campaigns, he donates to our events, and loans out staff when needed.

We Oregonians have faith in our Senator and know that he will be in there campaigning for Smith's opponent.

Senator Wyden manages to do something very few Democratic statewide officeholders do in Oregon: He routinely gets 55% of the vote in even the reddest counties in the state. And, yes, that's probably partially because he goes to the trouble of holding town meetings with Smith in every county of Oregon.

So, thanks to Josh for clarifying, and I hope the 'sphere will trust us Oregonians when we say there's nothing to get upset about here.

Sen. Wyden has been the strongest supporter of Statewide Democratic candidates in Oregon both in terms of spending his time on the campaign trail and helping to raise money for Democrats.  I have no doubt whatsoever that he will be a staunch supporter of the Democratic candidate with the best chance to win against Gordon Smith.  

Thanks Josh for clarifying, I never believed for a minute that Sen. Wyden would stay silent in this race.    

Thanks for your participation in general and for clearing up this issue specifically.

Well, that's good but it disturbs me that Wyden has joint townhalls with Smith.  Wyden let CAFTA-DR out of committee in the Senate and Smith is known as a Corporate purchased Senator for more bad trade agreements.  

Now, this reads like pulling teeth to get Wyden to work for a Democratic Senatorial Candidate.

DeFazio is the true Progressive and if in the Senate, would most assuredly throw a ratchet in the Corporate sponsored legislation such as CAFTA-DR.  

Well I guess we'll see.  Thanks for responding.

I don't think the issue was ever that Wyden wouldn't support the Democratic nominee--that seemed based on an unfortunate phrasing by someone else in that article.

What is still worrying, and is only reinforced by Kardon's response here, is that Gordon will be getting a free pass from Ron. And that's just not acceptable.

I don't mean that Wyden needs to thrash Smith about at every opportunity, but there is a strong issue of accountability on policy and facts that simply must be elucidated.

No one is asking Wyden to call Smith a warmonger or discuss his various ethical problems. But these are serious times, and to simply beg off ever pointing out that Smith has enabled this war, the rejection of habeas corpus and the endorsement of torture is extremely frustrating.

It is difficult to support a challenger without expressing why they are better than the incumbent. What Kardon is apparently saying is that Wyden will not point out that Peter or Earl or Steve or whomever will NOT lead us into a choice war, will NOT suspend the most basic of personal rights, will NOT endorse torture, will NOT drill in ANWR, will NOT endorse federal discrimination amendments, etc. Those are selling points for the Democrat that trade heavily on the reason Smith is being opposed--because he did all those things.

You'd think since Smith has all but called Wyden and his no-voting colleagues a traitor to his country, Ron might see clear to pointing out Smith's policy deficits. But I greatly fear this is simply more of what happened in CT in 2006, when Lamont won the primary, Wyden pledged to support Lamont...and then remained silent as a non-Democrat lied and obfuscated his way back into the Senate. It was the exact same sense of collegiality and comity that put Holy Joe back in office, and I think Wyden needs a strong message that it's a fucking stupid and counterproductive strategy, frankly.

When will Democrats pick up the white courtesy phone and figure out that the populace is not looking for shrinking violets who don't say anything negative for fear of looking confrontational--they are looking for people who will stand up against what is WRONG. Gordon Smith is WRONG, and needs to be held to account.

As I said in our piece at Loaded Orygun about it, Gordon's got great hair, a lot of people seem to like him, and he's no Rick Santorum. He's been a great and giving public servant. But he's wrong for the state now, he's not dealt with us fairly and honestly at times, and he's allowed the President to put us in grave danger at minimum--actively helped him at worst. He's gotta be called on it, and I think Wyden needs to be up there doing it if he says he's going to "support the candidate" and the Democrats in the next election. Supporting a Democrat in this case also means removing a Republican.

Supporting a Democrat in this case also means removing a Republican.

Doesn't it always?

I think you're hairsplitting here.  "Not going negative" doesn't mean "ignoring legitimate policy disagreement".