Labor Commish Dan Gardner, plus six legislators, endorse Jeff Merkley for U.S. Senate

In advance of the Labor Day weekend, Labor Commissioner Dan Gardner endorsed Jeff Merkley for U.S. Senate.

"Jeff Merkley's leadership in the House has opened doors for workers all across Oregon. He has been a real ally in protecting prevailing wage jobs and the minimum wage, expanding collective bargaining rights, protect our firefighters and police officers and strengthening Oregon's family leave laws," Gardner said. "That's the kind of leadership Oregon needs in the U.S. Senate, and Jeff's the guy to get it done."

In addition, six legislators who are all labor-union members, also endorsed Merkley.

State Senator Lori Monnes Anderson (D-Gresham) State Representative Jeff Barker (D-Beaverton/Aloha) State Representative Larry Galizio (D-Tigard) State Representative Paul Holvey (D-Eugene) State Representative Diane Rosenbaum (D-Portland) State Representative Mike Schaufler (D-Happy Valley) State Representative Brad Witt (D-Clatskanie)

Read the rest at BendWeekly.com.

Discuss.

Comments

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Rosenbaum's an interesting endorsement, given the recent controversy.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: James X. | Aug 31, 2007 2:04:59 PM Rosenbaum's an interesting endorsement, given the recent controversy.

    Can you expand on that, I am not clear on what you are talking about.

  • Satya (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Although this is valid information, I wonder after Willamette Week's assignation Rogue of the Week to our own Kari Chisolm and then finding this article with a "Join Team Merkely" banner. Is Blue Oregon more a part of a machine than I imagined?

    What news on the other candidates?

  • (Show?)

    Hey, glad you asked! Out in Pendleton/Hermiston, last Sunday's front page had a nice story on Novick out on the hustings, with the headline Novick Impresses.

  • BlueNote (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I like Novick, but I would like to skip the primary contest crap and to suggest that all progressives should take a few minutes this weekend to celebrate Labor Day and the sacrifices of union organizers over the past 80+ years. It does not matter whether you are a Repub or Dem or Green, if you have a 40 hour week, if you have paid vacation, if you have sick leave, if you have a retirement program, you can thank the sacrifices of union organizers and the people who helped them.

  • (Show?)
    Is Blue Oregon more a part of a machine than I imagined?

    Jeff Merkley just lined up an impressive set of Representatives to support him in the primary. Thats news and the implications should be discussed. Im sure if the Novick campaign had such endorsements they would send out a press release and BlueOregon would put it up for discussion too. The difference is with Jeff's extensive legislative experience he has shown his ability to get things done and garner support for his ideas with other elected officials. If you want someone that knows how to get things done thats Merkley. He knows how to pick his battles and not be marginalized in a legislative body.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Lestatdelc, Rosenbaum was one of the nays on the resolution. The others were Dingfelder, Greenlick, Kafoury and Nolan.

    Satya, it's a paid ad. I think it's fair to take into consideration what money Kari is receiving from the Merkley campaign for ad placement ($400/mo. according to Blogads) and consulting (web development, as far as I know), and I assume that's why Kari discloses it, so we can take it for what it's worth. I'm guessing, though, that any editorial partiality toward Merkley is motivated more by Kari's own opinions than an idea that Merkley would drop him otherwise. And I'm also pretty sure Kari favored Merkley before any consulting and ad buys happened. I do think that Merkley's campaign would not make the mistake of telling Kari what to say, and that Kari would not operate that way. Of course, that doesn't preclude Merkley's campaign from giving Kari tips about things like endorsements.

    I'm sure Kari can correct me and/or defend himself, though. I'm just offering my own perspective.

  • (Show?)

    then finding this article with a "Join Team Merkely" banner.

    Please understand that the advertisements here are PAID sponsors. For quite a few weeks, the Novick campaign had an advertisement running. They're not running ads now, but that's their choice.

    Also, I've verified (again) that we're getting notified of any and all news from the Novick campaign. When they make news, we'll report it. Not to worry. Both Steve and his manager have me programmed into their cell phones. They know exactly how to get on BlueOregon.

    In short, make news. We'll report it.

  • (Show?)

    Thanks, James. A few notes.

    • As a consultant to the campaign, I'm obviously privy to all kinds of things that don't make it into print.

    • As a consultant to the campaign, I certainly get their press releases. I also get Novick's press releases. When campaigns make news, we'll publish it here.

    • One more time: Please do not assume that I am responsible for every word published here at BlueOregon. Jeff Alworth and Charlie Burr are my co-editors.

    • Very, very, very soon, we're going to have a BlueOregon Fellow -- who will be the primary content creator of the "Voice of BlueOregon" news coverage. My wife and I are having a baby this fall; expect BlueOregon to take a major backseat to the wee one.

    • Certainly, everyone can make their own judgment as to whether they believe BlueOregon is a credible source for news and opinion. If you don't believe it is, don't read it. Better yet, start a competitor. I'd love that.

  • (Show?)

    p.s. TJ, thanks for the reminder about the East O story. I missed that one.

  • (Show?)

    You know, I did too the first time. Steve linked it and I glossed over that it was a link. Then Jake mentioned it a couple days later.

  • BlueNote (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari - skipping the political bullshit for a few moments, congrats on the baby. I don't know you although I think we chatted for a while at an Edwards / Trial Lawyer's meet and greet earlier this summer. Sounds like you have your priorities straight.

    Now, back to politics: To the poster above who talks about Merkley "knowing how to pick his battles", I respectfully suggest that your words are merely code for a politician who is willing to sacrifice his or her principles for political expediency. Health care reform, immigration reform, tax reform, and economic justice are all going to be extremely unpopular positions after FOX News and Lying Lars get finished with their educational efforts. I want my elected leaders to fight to the death (at least politically, if not literally) to do what is right, not what is "realistic". If you want people who promise to be "realists" vote for Clinton / Merkley. If you want people who aare willing to throw themselves on the grenade of justice rather than kissing corporate ass, choose Novick / Edwards.

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Im sure if the Novick campaign had such endorsements they would send out a press release and BlueOregon would put it up for discussion too.

    Maybe... since the recent bad press for Blue0, but the East Oregonian story: Novick Impresses has the date August 26. I suppose 'oops i missed it' can suffice. Dunno.

  • (Show?)

    Posted by: BlueNote | Aug 31, 2007 3:39:28 PM

    (scroll)

  • BlueNote (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This was posted on the NY Times site AFTER my above post, but for what it is worth .....

    Edwards' Wife Talks of Clinton 'Hatred'

    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: August 31, 2007

    Filed at 7:13 p.m. ET

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, says ''hatred'' of his rival Hillary Rodham Clinton would motivate Republicans to vote against her in the general election.

    ''I want to be perfectly clear: I do not think the hatred against Hillary Clinton is justified,'' Elizabeth Edwards said in an interview with Time magazine out this week. ''I don't know where it comes from. I don't begin to understand it. But you can't pretend it doesn't exist, and it will energize the Republican base. Their nominee won't energize them, Bush won't, but Hillary as the nominee will. It's hard for John to talk about, but it's the reality.''

    Responding to Mrs. Edwards, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said polls show that Clinton will be a strong opponent against the Republicans seeking the presidency.

    ''Senator Clinton leads all the leading Republicans in national and key swing state polls because Americans know she is the Democrat with the strength and experience to bring real change,'' Singer said.

    Elizabeth Edwards has become the voice for many criticisms of her husband's leading rivals. She has suggested that Obama and his campaign plagiarized material from Edwards' 2004 presidential campaign and criticized Obama for opposing the Iraq war but voting for the funding, saying that he's been ''behaving in a holier-than-thou way.''

    But many of her criticisms have been aimed at Clinton. She's criticized her for not having the ''political will'' to enact universal health care. She also said her husband has a better record on women's issues than Clinton.

    Last year, Mrs. Edwards apologized to Clinton after saying her choices in life have made her happier than the New York senator.

    John Edwards also has been making distinctions with Clinton as he tries to overcome her strong lead in the primary race, but his criticisms have been more veiled. Last week, during a speech in New Hampshire he said Washington is corrupt and suggested Clinton was part of the system.

    ''The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale. The Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent,'' Edwards said, referencing a Clinton-era controversy in which high-dollar donors were allowed to stay in the White House's famed bedroom.

    Clinton is a divisive candidate, with a recent Gallup Poll showing her unfavorables at 48 percent and her favorable rating at 47 percent.

  • (Show?)

    And that is at all relevant to what you previously posted how BlueNote?

  • BlueNote (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I freely admit I may be losing my mind, so feel free to disregard my rambling. My partners are all leaving for their beach houses in Lincoln City or Neskowin and I am sitting here typing about politics. I was interested in Mrs. Edwards point about Hillary being potential poison to Dems. I think Hillary could torpedo the Dems in 2008 and I think Merkley has some of the same vulnerabilities.

    Happy Labor Day. Solidarity Forever!!!!!!!!!!

  • (Show?)

    Jeff Merkley certainly is racking up an impressive roster of endorsements. Congratulations.

    But where's the passion?

    Seriously, where is the passion in the Merkley campaign? Don't offer up some lame excuse about how he has "only" been in the race for a month, etc. That's not relevant. There has been passion bubbling over in the Novick campaign since before Steve announced, and in recent weeks here on BlueO the passion and enthusiasm of Novick supporters has manifested itself countless times and continues to do so.

    Maybe it's because Jeff Merkley was at least the 7th choice (by my count, behind DeFazio, Blumenauer, Hooley, Wu, Kate Brown, and Randall Edwards) of the DSCC establishment who recruited him to enter the race for reasons that are still mysterious to some of us. So it's not has if he's got what you would call "fire in the belly," and I don't detect any passion in his campaign so far, and none to speak of in his supporters.

    Don't get me wrong -- I sure do see the vehemence, but vehemence is not the same as passion, and despite the vehemence with which his HR2 vote has been defended here, and the general praise for his handling of the speakership, I'm not feeling the love here.

    He's a good man and a serviceable establishment candidate. That's fine. But does anyone go to the mat for that? And isn't THAT what we need in November of 2008?

  • Jason K. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Merkley's publicizing that Schauffler backs him?

    Geez. I wouldn't touch that guy with a ten-foot pole if I were trying to earn the Democratic primary.

    Schauffler was a high-maintenance nightmare during the legislature, one of the significant reasons 31 votes hcouldn't be found on some issues. In my experience, he hates the environmental movement and is a snide bully.

  • (Show?)

    For what it's worth, and it may not be much, but note that Jeff Merkley is the co-chair of the John Edwards for President campaign in Oregon.

    (Along with Senator Margaret Carter and attorney Bob Stoll.)

  • (Show?)

    Oh, and on the East O. I don't make it a regular stop, because they've always been a subscribers-only website. Not sure when that changed. I'll be checking in there now. (Or more accurately, our Fellow will be.)

  • (Show?)

    Bluenote sez:If you want people who promise to be "realists" vote for Clinton / Merkley. If you want people who are willing to throw themselves on the grenade of justice rather than kissing corporate ass, choose Novick / Edwards.

    Bluenote sez: .........was interested in Mrs. Edwards point about Hillary being potential poison to Dems. I think Hillary could torpedo the Dems in 2008 and I think Merkley has some of the same vulnerabilities.

    But to his credit, Bluenote also sez: I freely admit I may be losing my mind..........

    So, ok. We can agree on the last point anyway.

    Hillary Clinton and her husband completely gave away the store on NAFTA; They appointed Corporatists to oversee Wall Street and the entire energy market was given over to Enron and other Texas buddies; They instituted the laughable "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy for the military; They got every damned insurance weasel in the room for comprehensive healthcare reform thus showing Cheney how it should be done.......and of course she's still weaseling on the whole Iraq deal and has been happy to use the Bill of Rights as toilet paper.

    Jeff Merkley worked for domestic partnerships; Went up against Big Tobacco to get some Oregon kids insured; Went up against the Safetycrats on the Helmet law repeal; Has called for getting the troops home ASAP; Called for the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales, and so on.

    Get some sleep Bluenote.

    How about a Edwards/Merkley ticket or Obama/Merkley.

  • (Show?)

    Kari:

    Congrats on the pending addition to your family! Kids can be a lot of fun. It's hard to believe Abby will be starting school next week.

  • (Show?)

    This is a pretty good place to start:

    Seriously, where is the passion in the Merkley campaign? Don't offer up some lame excuse about how he has "only" been in the race for a month, etc.

    I'd like to share a story. Back in that mid-session continuum, I had a beer with Kari and asked him about Jeff Merkley. He was impressing the hell out of me. It was the first time he'd really come into my consciousness, and it was the first time I thought about him as a candidate for other offices.

    A few weeks before he announced, there was a rumor floating around that he was considering running. I'd already done a bit of research into his background, and I literally got on the phone that afternoon to ask what I could do to convince him to run. It led to that three-part series I did on Jeff. I have never met him and am certainly not on anyone's payroll. I do tend to get excited about candidates from time to time, but even for me, that was unusual.

    There's some passion, if only in one person.

  • (Show?)

    Damn, I meant to add one thing to the reply to Stephanie--Jeff's not a seventh-tier candidate. The only better candidate in the offing was DeFazio, whose demonstrated strength in rural districts made him a first choice. But Jeff will run a more competitive campaign than many so-called "first-tier" candidates like Earl and Bradbury--who have better name recognition among casual voters, but who would have found no love in rural Oregon. Jeff will surprise a lot of people with his strength there--depend on it.

  • (Show?)

    A last comment on BlueOregon neutrality: we're not. We didn't create this site as a news site or a place for Dems to dump press releases with equal access. We're so passionate about politics that many of us have made it a career. This is, as it must be said with regularity, not a downside. Blogs are good precisely because they're irreverent, individual, and personal. Trust me, the last thing anyone wants is for us to put up a veil of objectivity. (And that doesn't mean we're all for the same team, either. I don't actually know who Charlie's supporting in this race. I believe it's Novick.)

    That said, we try to give everyone a fair shake. We know that the race between Novick and Merkley is a friendly contest and a tune up for the real test--a shot at taking out Gordon Smith.

    Finally, Kari, Charlie, and I don't contribute all the content to the site. We have other posters and we invite YOU to post. Hell, Steve Novick WAS a poster on BlueOregon, and we invited him to continue to send us guest posts.

    I personally don't mind in the least that people ask where our allegiances are and question our objectivity. Please continue to do so--it adds to the discussion and lets you know how to weigh our commentary. But it's another thing to wonder if we're secretly trying to rig the game. You have my personal guarantee (for whatever it's worth) that we will never do that.

  • (Show?)
    I respectfully suggest that your words are merely code for a politician who is willing to sacrifice his or her principles for political expediency.

    Yes he sacrificed so many principles while delivering the most progressive legislative session in two decades. I want someone who has a record of getting legislation that I like passed rather than hind sight and rhetoric as my Senator.

  • East Bank Thom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A last comment on BlueOregon neutrality: we're not.

    That clears things up then.

    it's another thing to wonder if we're secretly trying to rig the game.

    One thing's still fuzzy. Why did Kari "fix the glitch" that let people know who was wordsmithing/posting which articles?

    Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 28, 2007 11:04:04 AM p.s. The Google Reader thing was a glitch. It's now fixed. The "author" of the posts should read as "BlueOregon.com" - not any one individual. For what it's worth, it was reporting many posts that I didn't write as mine, too.

  • (Show?)

    But it's another thing to wonder if we're secretly trying to rig the game. You have my personal guarantee (for whatever it's worth) that we will never do that.

    For the record, Jeff, I totally believe you, but what I'm more concerned about are overt demonstrations of bias. I recognize, however, that even though lots of use BlueO as a public utility of sorts, we don't "own" it in the capitalistic sense, and that in that sense we are at the mercy of the goodwill and decency of those who do. Therefore, we need to rely on that goodwill and decency while also being vigilant and calling out incidents that disturb us. I guess we'll be taking our cue from Merkley's old job in the Reagan Administration: TRUST BUT VERIFY.

    %^>

  • (Show?)

    Why did Kari "fix the glitch" that let people know who was wordsmithing/posting which articles?

    Because the "Voice of BlueOregon" is supposed to be the voice of BlueOregon -- all of the editors are responsible for all of those words.

    When any one of us stakes a hard claim on an issue that divides lefties, we do it over our own name. But the Voice of BlueOregon is supposed to be neutral/progressive. Are we always 100% successful in that? Surely not. But we sure do try hard.

    I know that that's not how most blogs do it, but we've been doing it this way for over three years -- you're new around, you're excused for misunderstanding.

    EBT, I gotta tell ya: Please stop with the meta-chatter. You do a great job arguing the substance here. But you're not particularly interesting when you're imagining motivations of people you don't know.

  • Ted Gleichman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There's a cynical old joke from the newsprint-news biz:

    "News is what happens to an editor."

    When something happens to, or happens to occur to, an editor at BlueO, it frequently turns into dynamic patter and public action.

    That's about as good as it gets in the marketplace of ideas, and it sure beats the regal pontificating that comes from most in the corporate media.

    As a newcomer (2 years in Oregon, dip in and out of BlueO, and have commented rarely), I often disagree with the editors, and occasionally think they've pushed the envelope too much.

    But that's why the marketplace offers different sizes of envelopes. I don't think I've ever seen anything from Our Noble Leaders that I would characterize as an unjustified cheap shot -- that would violate the English definition of a gentleman: A man who is never unintentionally rude.

    On that basis, I've never observed Charlie, Jeff, or Kari be anything other than gentlemen. And if you don't agree, byte me.

  • Daniel Spiro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Good for Merkley in getting endorsements from well known Oregonians. Endorsements are assets in any campaign, though their only relevance here is with the primary campaign, as I assume these same people would endorse Novick in the general election.

    What I don't understand, though, is why these people are endorsing Merkley, other than that he is skilled in working with other politicians. Washington has hundreds of legislators who possess such skills. Don't we need someone who will shake things up in Washington, and not simply someone who will fit in like a hand in a glove?

    Oregon already has a legislator who is comfy in the nation's capital. Surely, Mr. Smith gets lots of lots of endorsements too, not to mention money. Does Merkley expect to beat Smith simply by saying "Vote for me, because a lot of Democratic names endorse me? I'll tell you what I stand for once I win the election."

    Tell us now what you stand for, Jeff. And say it in a way that makes an impression. That might not the way to get endorsements from professional politicians, but it's the way to deserve endorsements from progressive voters.

  • satya (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I appreciate everyone's responses to my original question about Blue O's relationship to Merkley. For the record, I have a massive crush on Steve and am very excited by his candidacy, but want to see the primary process do what it does. I have met Jeff as well and think he is good people in all ways. Jeff has come out with a strong "circle the wagons" establishment candidate strategy, getting all the big names he can onboard and catching press for low hanging fruit, like the Gonzalez thing. What Oregon D primary voter is going to be turned off by this stance? IT was not such a brave press release as everyone seemed to think. It was a smart one, though...and the timing. Wow. So I wait to see what Steve's response is, what kind of a strategy he can work up as the insurrectionist. He is one of the most well spoken, whip smart people I know, so I bet it will be good.

    Kari, Jeff, Charlie and company: Blue Oregon is a great venue for all of us and I really appreciate what you do.

    I, as always, reserve the right to ask questions.

  • (Show?)

    Nice comments all around--thanks. Ted, you probably didn't invent this, but it's new to me (and heee-larious): "And if you don't agree, byte me." Gotta work that into my repertoire.

  • (Show?)

    Jeff said: "We know that the race between Novick and Merkley is a friendly contest and a tune up for the real test--a shot at taking out Gordon Smith."

    One of the problems I have with Blue Oregon (not the editors but some of the people who comment) is that a few of the threads have gotten rather nasty regarding this race. Granted, most of those people don't directly represent the campaign, but they do indirectly through their words and actions.

    For certain reasons I am hesitant to support either candidate at this point. The bickering and bitching back and forth between Merkley and Novick supporters lately makes me even more hesitant to support either of them.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    In addition, six legislators who are all labor-union members, also endorsed Merkley.

    State Senator Lori Monnes Anderson (D-Gresham) State Representative Jeff Barker (D-Beaverton/Aloha) State Representative Larry Galizio (D-Tigard) State Representative Paul Holvey (D-Eugene) State Representative Diane Rosenbaum (D-Portland) State Representative Mike Schaufler (D-Happy Valley) State Representative Brad Witt (D-Clatskanie)</i>
    

    Once again we are reminded, nobody's perfect. We all make mistakes at one time or another.

  • (Show?)

    David, I agree, the bickering has been unseemly. In my own opinion, it's been pretty much coming in one direction, but that's my own reading.

    On bias, please look at the right hand panel--there are 52 individual contributors to this site. There are three editors. And there is a space for guest columns.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    David, Thank you for your comments.

    In 1995 I went to an event and ran into an old friend (had been active to the point of being a party officer in the 1990s, then got burned out and left politics to do other things) and introduced the person I was with as someone I had met due to my involvement in the 1992 US Senate primary.

    "Didn't get involved in that campaign---so nasty, I stayed far far away".

    That should be a cautionary tale.

    Those of you who think Jeff Merkley should stand in the middle of Pioneer Courthouse Square and do a huge mea culpa because he wasn't one of a handful of Portland state reps who voted against a symbolic resolution as the Iraq War started should think about that cautionary tale.

    If the issue is that important to you, go spend all your time on the positive action of volunteering for the Novick campaign. I am sure they can use the volunteer help.

    But if you think you are helping Novick, think again. One reason I am not actively involved in the US Senate primary is that I am waiting to see if it is 2 obviously intelligent men debating issues, or if the advocates of one side or the other cause the campaign to spiral down to 1992 primary nastiness (think Swift Boat nasty).

    And what did all that nastiness gain? The primary ended in a recount. The winner of the recount did not reach out to those who supported the opponent. Clinton and many other candidates looked a lot more appealing in the fall.

    And Bob Packwood's last great one liner of his career was probably the put down in a fall debate when AuCoin said Packwood was being negative. "After what you did in the primary, YOU are calling ME negative?"

    Let's get serious, folks.

    Is this thread about "the establishment vs. the underdog" or is it about the Speaker of the House being endorsed by a former state rep. and 6 current state reps--people who have worked with Merkley?

    Where are the people who have worked closely with Steve Novick? When will we see those endorsements?

    This is not 1996 when the DSCC was backing a total unknown.

    Decades ago I worked on a primary where the something like 90% of the party establishment backed the opponent. But we got 59% of the vote. How did we do that?

    We had a tightly organized statewide campaign run by a steering committee which included a friend of the candidate's family. Our local campaign met every week for planning and discussion. The local campaign was all volunteer with donated space for an office, and many of us spent much of our spare time there. I was volunteer coordinator.

    But we didn't do it by whining about the establishment backing the other side. We did it with work, work, more work, and very little publicity until near the end. Our candidate had a huge turnout when he came to our community shortly before the primary. At least one local state legislator, the mayor, and the county clerk appeared on the courthouse steps that day, and the courthouse lawn was filled. I still have that newspaper picture.

    Steve is not a nasty person, and he is ill served by those here who have been so nasty. When I emailed (as someone here had suggested I do), I got a straight answer from Steve:

    This is Steve - If you had looked at my web site, you would see a discussion of a variety of issues, including a statement - which might not be as detailed as you would like, but I did address the issue as soon as I my campaign began - about veterans' health care. (See below.) I don't think that you will see that much of my web site is dedicated to the 2003 resolution. I promise that you will see more detail on veterans' issues from us......<<

    ...followed by the section which can be found on Novick's website by clicking on the Issues tab and then looking for Prioritized Defense Spending.

    Those of you who don't like Merkley should get out and work for Steve. Ask a Democratic legislator you know who they are supporting for US Senate. If you know any veterans or military families, ask them what issues are important to them.

    2003 was 4 years ago. Most people want politicians interested in 2007 and the years to come. If you don't believe that, start talking to your friends and neighbors and find out for yourself.

  • (Show?)

    LT, please look at what I said elsewhere.

    No one is saying that Merkley needs to perform any public acts of contrition or self-abasement, but the HR2 vote is significant for two reasons:

    1) it allows Smith to muddy the waters if his opponent in the general election is Merkley

    (even though we all know that Merkley was always against the war, he's got this damn vote on his record and nothing you or I or Merkley or Novick can say will change that)

    but more importantly, as I said in the other thread,

    2) this vote may illuminate an attribute of Jeff Merkley that we consider undesirable in a US Senator or other legislative representative: namely, an inclination to get rolled, or to go along in the name of comity with bad Republican initiatives.

    The vote is just the symptom. I'm much more worried about the disease.

  • (Show?)

    Stephanie... at risk of reopening the HR 2 can of worms...

    Your point #1 sounds like Battered Democrat Syndrome.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you basically arguing that Merkley shouldn't be the nominee because the Republicans have at their disposal an argument against him - even though their argument is bogus?

    This is sort of like saying that Obama shouldn't be the nominee because the GOP is going to keep bringing up his middle name.

    Yes, Smith will be able to "muddy the waters" "even though we all know that Merkley was always against the war" -- but is that a reason to oppose him?

    Doesn't that just turn over our choice to Gordon Smith?

  • josh (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I decided to ask some folks in the Eugene Springfield area who is Dan Gardner, and every person had no idea. I then asked if they had heard of Paul Holvey, a few actually knew. I then asked if they had heard of Kitty Piercy and Sid Leiken and nearly every person had heard of both. The bottom line is endorsements really don't matter. To the person who thought this is an impressive group, think again.

  • (Show?)
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you basically arguing that Merkley shouldn't be the nominee because the Republicans have at their disposal an argument against him - even though their argument is bogus?

    The Republicans will ALWAYS have a bogus argument to use. That's their game. The issue is what Merkley will do when faced with those bogus arguments.

    If Obama changed his middle name to avoid attacks, THAT would be the same thing.

  • (Show?)

    If Obama changed his middle name to avoid attacks, THAT would be the same thing.

    :::rolls eyes:::

    Dude, you've long since become unhinged on this issue. Your analogy is vacuous.

    Obama changing his middle name to avoid attacks bears ZERO relation to Merkley publically distinguishing between a BS frame and his desire to send a semi-formal message to men and women in uniform, and their friends and families, that he respects and admires their dedication to service and duty.

    In fact, Obama changing his middle name to avoid attacks would be MUCH more akin to a Dem being afraid to express admiration and respect for men and women in uniform for fear that it would be misunderstood. Both would be examples of fear-based motivation.

    Merkley stared them down, refused to sanction the BS and courageously gave moral support to men and women in uniform even though he probably knew that some Democrat down the road would try to use it against him. That's not fear-based motivation. It's called standing on principles.

  • (Show?)

    "BS frame and his desire to send a semi-formal message to men and women in uniform, and their friends and families, that he respects and admires their dedication to service and duty."

    The message WAS the BS frame, don't you get it? And giving Bush his money was about "not cutting off funds," despite the fact that this too is bullshit. Or giving in on FISA. Or capitulating on another 200mil, as Democrats are poised to do this month. They are votes based on getting Democrats NOT to stand up against bad policy, and they are generated with fear--fear that Republicans might say something bad about them.

    "courageously gave moral support to men and women in uniform"

    How does this take courage? Platitudes are easy. You have stepped into some bizarro world where meaningless traps are the important votes, and stances on actual policy are superfluous. Afraid to express admiration--what ARE you talking about? Could the troops be any more BATHED in empty support than they are right now? I hope all that symbolic support keeps the shrapnel out next time there's an IED in the road.

  • (Show?)

    I guess the way I would put it is to say that legislative resolutions are pretty weak and meaningless avenues for the expression of support of fighting men and women... UNLESS, of course, they come with tangible expressions of that support. Maybe additional budget for supplies and equipment, or improvements in the troops' living conditions, or restrictions on the duration and frequency of deployments. Now THAT's support.

  • (Show?)

    I guess the way I would put it is to say that legislative resolutions are pretty weak and meaningless avenues for the expression of support of fighting men and women...

    Completely agree.

    Which is why the Hillary analogies are bogus and why this entire "controversy" is bogus.

  • (Show?)

    You may not like it, but it's not bogus.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    but note that Jeff Merkley is the co-chair of the John Edwards for President campaign in Oregon.

    Thanks for that info, Kari. I was not aware of that. That move certainly shows good judgment.

    I think we've all made our points about that 2003 resolution repeatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly. If people don't get it by now, they're never going to. And I can only beat my head against a brick wall for so long.

    I think a lot of the anger by TJ , Stephanie and myself, among others, stems from the obstinate refusal of so many posters here to accept that there are better ways to deal with trap votes than walking into them.

    You'd think we'd asked our rep to march through a Jewish neighborhood wearing NAZI regalia on his way to drowning puppies and kitties in the local river.

    The absolute stonewall that this idea has received from so many here borders on pathological. Why is it so wrong to ask Democrats to stand up and fight the bullshit, rather than capitulate to it? It's in our party's own best interest anyhow.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Merkley stared them down, refused to sanction the BS

    and he did this by voting for it?

    Bizzarro world indeed

  • (Show?)

    the obstinate refusal of so many posters here to accept ... The absolute stonewall that this idea has received from so many here

    <h2>Actually, not that many - other than Mitch. The whole HR2 thing has largely been a one-sided conversation.</h2>
in the news 2007

connect with blueoregon