Paying off his debts in that manner, you are correct, does not reflect well on the man. I think Mannix had other problems with recruitment for the '04 cycle because of the loss of incumbents due to term limits (and, IIRC, some choosing to retire of their own accord). This may simply have been bad timing for when he served as Chairman. Was not another problem that the Bush campaign didn't bother a lot with Oregon this cycle ? I was rather shocked at the incredible uptick in voters between '00 and '04 (and a lot of Kerry's margin seemed to be due to the Naderites switching back to support the 'Rats). Like I said, how much of that can be laid at Mannix's feet is the question, when a lot of it appears to have been beyond his control.
"- Ask yourself when you here a candidate lost 3 state races what do you think of? I think of sore loser,"
You might think that way, if you didn't bother to look at the candidate and ask yourself, "Why did he lose ?" Some individuals ask that question of the stalwart Conservative Republican Tom McClintock in California... He's run for statewide office three times (Comptroller, twice, in 1994 and 2002; Gubernatorial recall, 2003), but he is anything BUT a loser. Why he lost those contests were for different reasons, and to simply dismiss the person as a "sore loser" is not only short-sighted, but very ignorant. Why Mannix lost his 3 races should also be examined. He ran in 1996 as a Democrat for Attorney-General and failed to secure the nomination (ostensibly because he was far too Conservative to obtain it). He ran in 2000 for the same office, this time securing the nomination as a Republican -- but he lost the job because the Libertarians ran a spoiler candidate, and the same identical situation occurred in 2002 when he ran for Governor. No substantial leftist 3rd party ran to funnel votes away from the Democrats in either of those contests. Would I call Mannix a sore loser because of those situations ? No, the first was a loss due to ideological insuitability for the Democrats, the latter two the victim of a 3rd party. Even Michael Barone described him as more articulate and well-versed on the issues than Kulongoski in '02.
"Nader gained votes in 00 but lost a large amount of votes in 04. Do you honestly think the republicans will be just excited now as 02 with Mannix I say no way. They know hes lost and wont put the effort in again to help him win. Would republicans be more excited to see a young, intelligent candidate who wont run a smear campaign who can attract people from both sides or Mannix the guy who hasn't won nothing. I think its clear."
Remember what I said above. Atkinson could just as easily get sandbagged by the Libertarians as Mannix did -- twice. Like I said, you call Mannix a loser while failing to analyze the reason for his loss. How can you necessarily claim with certainty that Atkinson will somehow be able to overcome what sandbagged Mannix ? I'm also not sure what you mean by a "smear campaign." Mannix himself had to get through a RINO-laden primary in '02, and RINOs are often the single most vicious campaigners I've ever witnessed... namely because they campaign exactly like liberal Democrats, from which they are usually ideologically indistinguishable.
"- I feel Mannix had his shot in 02, and we need some who will energize the base and Atkinson is that guy. Between 02 and now Mannix has become even more polarizing and has burned many bridges in his own party."
Well, if Atkinson scores a victory in the primary, I hope he can take the Governorship.